Refund of anti-dumping duty paid before rescission was upheld because the rescinding notification expressly applied only prospectively and preserved things done before rescission. The Court noted that duty payments made before 29.02.2012 fell within that saving clause, and the Designated Authority's final findings had recorded no adverse impact on the domestic industry, no price suppression or depression, and no justification for continued anti-dumping duty on phenol from Chinese Taipei and the USA. In view of those findings, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose, declined to interfere with the Tribunal's refund order, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Refund of anti-dumping duty paid before rescission was upheld because the rescinding notification expressly applied only prospectively and preserved things done before rescission. The Court noted that duty payments made before 29.02.2012 fell within that saving clause, and the Designated Authority's final findings had recorded no adverse impact on the domestic industry, no price suppression or depression, and no justification for continued anti-dumping duty on phenol from Chinese Taipei and the USA. In view of those findings, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose, declined to interfere with the Tribunal's refund order, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
