Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
CESTAT dismissed the revenue's appeal and directed refund/relief to the importer. The Tribunal held that the notification imposing anti-dumping duty was previously set aside by CESTAT and, even if the revenue's grounds were accepted, s.9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 terminates an anti-dumping duty five years after imposition unless validly extended. No valid subsequent notification extending Notification No.12/2010-ADD beyond 19.02.2015 was produced; consequently anti-dumping duty under that notification could not lawfully be levied on imports entered under B/E dated 13.06.2017. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
CESTAT dismissed the revenue's appeal and directed refund/relief to the importer. The Tribunal held that the notification imposing anti-dumping duty was previously set aside by CESTAT and, even if the revenue's grounds were accepted, s.9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 terminates an anti-dumping duty five years after imposition unless validly extended. No valid subsequent notification extending Notification No.12/2010-ADD beyond 19.02.2015 was produced; consequently anti-dumping duty under that notification could not lawfully be levied on imports entered under B/E dated 13.06.2017. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.