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>Tribunal Overturns Anti-Dumping Duty Demand Due to Late Notice; Appellant Cleared of Fact Suppression.</h1> <h3>ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS - KANDLA CUSTOMS</h3> ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS - KANDLA CUSTOMS - TMI Issues:Whether the appellant is liable for the benefit under Notification No.21/2016-CUS (ADD) dated 31.05.2016, and whether the demand is time-barred.Analysis:The appeal was filed against an order confirming the imposition of anti-dumping duty by the Commissioner of Customs. The issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit under Notification No.21/2016-CUS (ADD) dated 31.05.2016. The appellant claimed to be the importer, with M/s. Lu Xi Chemical (Hong Kong) as the exporter, seeking the benefit under Sr. No.4 of the notification. The appellant argued that the bill of lading clearly indicated Lu Xi Chemical (Hong Kong) as the shipper, supporting their claim. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their position. The appellant also contended that there was no suppression of facts, as all information was disclosed to the customs authority during the bill of entry filing. The appellant argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28 (4) of the Customs Act, citing precedents to support their stance.The revenue, represented by the Superintendent (AR), reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the imposition of anti-dumping duty.The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the appeal could be disposed of on the ground of limitation. The dispute related to bill of entry filings in 2016 and 2017, with the show cause notice issued in 2021. The Tribunal noted that all relevant information, including the importer and exporter details, was available in the documents submitted during the bill of entry filing. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no suppression of facts by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued much after the normal period of limitation. As a result, the demand was set aside on the ground of being time-barred, and the appeal was allowed.The judgment was pronounced on 22.11.2024 by the Tribunal, comprising HON'BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) and HON'BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL). The appellant was represented by Shri Hardik Modh, while Shri Sanjay Kumar appeared for the revenue.
TaxTMI 