<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (11) TMI 366 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218351</link>
    <description>Rule 20(2)(a) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, read with section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, permits final anti-dumping duty to be imposed with retrospective effect from the date of provisional duty. The expiry of the provisional notification in the intervening period does not defeat the subsequent final levy. On that basis, anti-dumping duty for imports during the interregnum was sustained, and the demand was upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 366 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218351</link>
      <description>Rule 20(2)(a) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, read with section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, permits final anti-dumping duty to be imposed with retrospective effect from the date of provisional duty. The expiry of the provisional notification in the intervening period does not defeat the subsequent final levy. On that basis, anti-dumping duty for imports during the interregnum was sustained, and the demand was upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>