https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259453 The article addresses whether an amending customs notification inserting the manufacturer's name into a tariff entry operated retrospectively so as to cover earlier imports. One view treated the amendment as curative and therefore effective from the original notification date, which would bring the imports within the anti-dumping duty entry. The contrary view held that the original notification contained a distinct residual entry and that a fiscal notification imposing liability cannot be given retrospective effect unless expressly stated or necessarily implied. The Members differed on whether the amendment was retrospective or prospective, and the issue remained unresolved in the order. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2015 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259453 The article addresses whether an amending customs notification inserting the manufacturer's name into a tariff entry operated retrospectively so as to cover earlier imports. One view treated the amendment as curative and therefore effective from the original notification date, which would bring the imports within the anti-dumping duty entry. The contrary view held that the original notification contained a distinct residual entry and that a fiscal notification imposing liability cannot be given retrospective effect unless expressly stated or necessarily implied. The Members differed on whether the amendment was retrospective or prospective, and the issue remained unresolved in the order. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259453