https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362731 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case concerning the retrospective nature of Notification No.5 of 2016-Cus.(ADD). It held that the notification is retrospective, entitling the petitioner to a refund of the anti-dumping duty paid. The court directed the respondent to process the refund claim within three months and set aside the order confirming the petitioner's liability for anti-dumping duty. Despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under the Customs Act, the court entertained the writ petitions due to the substantial question of law involved in interpreting the notification's retrospective effect. en-us Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Mar 2019 10:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362731 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case concerning the retrospective nature of Notification No.5 of 2016-Cus.(ADD). It held that the notification is retrospective, entitling the petitioner to a refund of the anti-dumping duty paid. The court directed the respondent to process the refund claim within three months and set aside the order confirming the petitioner's liability for anti-dumping duty. Despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under the Customs Act, the court entertained the writ petitions due to the substantial question of law involved in interpreting the notification's retrospective effect. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362731