TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Anti-dumping duty upheld on reflective glass as exemption notification excluded green variant during disputed period</h1> <h3>Puthuval Associates Versus Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Custom House, Willingdon Island, Cochin And Bright Glass Traders Versus Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Custom House, Willingdon Island, Cochin</h3> CESTAT Bangalore dismissed an appeal regarding anti-dumping duty on reflective glass for the period 04/01/2009 to 22/05/2009. The appellant claimed ... Levy of Anti-dumping duty - reflective glass during the period 04/01/2009 to 22/05/2009 - scope of N/N. 51/2009-Cus. dt. 22/05/2009 - HELD THAT:- During the intervening period i.e. 06.01.2009 to 22.05.2009, green reflective glass was not mentioned under the exclusion category of the N/N. 4/2009-Cus dt. 06/01/2009 but mentioned in the amending N/N. 51/2009-Cus. dt. 22/05/2009. It is found that recently, Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal interpreting the said notifications in the light of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar and Company [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. [2022 (1) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT], in the case of Glass House Vs. CC(Appeals) [2023 (11) TMI 915 - CESTAT BANGALORE], observed In the present case, since Reflective Glass is not found in the Notification No.4/2009-Cus. dated 06.01.2009 for exempting them from anti-dumping duty, question of extending the benefit does not arise. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that no attempt can be made to infer the motive or meaning of the Notification other than what is emanating from the plain language of the Notification. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the Appeal. The impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Levy of anti-dumping duty on Dark Green Reflective Glass.2. Interpretation of Notifications No. 165/2003-Cus., 4/2009-Cus., and 51/2009-Cus.3. Retrospective application of subsequent notifications.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1: Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dark Green Reflective GlassThe appellant, a proprietary concern trading in Reflective Glass, imported Dark Green Reflective Glass from China and was levied anti-dumping duty by the Department. The appellant contested the levy, arguing that the goods fall outside the scope of anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeals.Issue 2: Interpretation of Notifications No. 165/2003-Cus., 4/2009-Cus., and 51/2009-Cus.The appellant argued that Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. should be read in light of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and relevant rules, asserting that the notification could only extend the period of imposition and not widen the scope of the original proceedings. They contended that the exclusion of reflective glass in Notification No. 165/2003-Cus. should continue, and the omission in Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. was a mistake. The Department, however, maintained that the anti-dumping duty was correctly levied as reflective glass was not excluded in Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. The Tribunal upheld the Department's stance, referencing the Bangalore Bench's interpretation and the Supreme Court's principles in the case of Dilip Kumar and Company, emphasizing that the plain language of the notification must be followed.Issue 3: Retrospective Application of Subsequent NotificationsThe appellant cited the judgment in Fibre Foils Limited, arguing that subsequent amendments clarifying existing provisions should apply retrospectively. They claimed Notification No. 51/2009-Cus., which excluded reflective glass from anti-dumping duty, should apply retrospectively to cover the period of Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. The Tribunal, however, upheld that the exclusion in Notification No. 51/2009-Cus. does not apply retrospectively, as reflective glass was not excluded in Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. during the period in question.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, confirming the levy of anti-dumping duty on Dark Green Reflective Glass for the period from 06/01/2009 to 22/05/2009, and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. The judgment emphasized strict adherence to the language of the notifications and rejected the retrospective application of subsequent amendments.(Order pronounced in Open Court on 15. 04. 2024)
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
