Safeguard duty under Notification 5/2012-Cus cannot apply to goods imported before official publication date

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that safeguard duty under Notification No. 5/2012-Cus cannot be imposed on electrical insulators of glass imported before the notification's publication date. The appellant's goods entered on 24.12.2012, while the notification was published on 24.02.2013. Following consistent judicial precedent, notifications take effect from publication date in Official Gazette, not notification date. The duty demand and consequential penalty were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Safeguard Duty on Electrical Insulators of Glass.
2. Effective Date of Notification for Imposing Safeguard Duty.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Safeguard Duty on Electrical Insulators of Glass:
The core issue in the case was whether the appellant is liable to pay safeguard duty on electrical insulators of glass as per Notification No. 5/2012-Cus (Safeguard) dated 20.12.2012. The appellant argued that the goods were imported under bill of entry No. 8823356 dated 20.12.2012, with the entry inward date being 24.12.2012. The notification was published in the Official Gazette on 24.02.2013, thus not in effect on the date of entry inwards, making the safeguard duty inapplicable.

2. Effective Date of Notification for Imposing Safeguard Duty:
The Tribunal examined Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which mandates that safeguard duty can be imposed via a notification in the Official Gazette. The Tribunal noted that the notification dated 20.12.2012 was published on 24.02.2013. Therefore, the safeguard duty could not be imposed on goods cleared on 24.12.2012. The Tribunal referenced multiple judgments, including GS Chatha Rice Mills (2020) and Adani Wilmar Ltd. (2023), which consistently held that the effective date of a notification is its publication date in the Official Gazette.

The Tribunal concluded that since the notification was published after the entry inward date, the safeguard duty was not applicable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The penalty on the co-appellant was also dismissed as it was consequential to the duty demand.

Order:
The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside with consequential reliefs, if any, as per law. The order was pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2024.

---