https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368603 The tribunal ruled in favor of the importer, holding that the anti-dumping duty did not apply to the imports in question. The importer's appeal against the refund of duty liability credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund was allowed, with the tribunal directing the refund to the importer in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962. The interpretation of the notification imposing anti-dumping duty on 'copolymers of polypropylene' favored the importer's argument that the duty was limited to specific polymers, excluding 'terpolymers'. en-us Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368603 The tribunal ruled in favor of the importer, holding that the anti-dumping duty did not apply to the imports in question. The importer's appeal against the refund of duty liability credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund was allowed, with the tribunal directing the refund to the importer in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962. The interpretation of the notification imposing anti-dumping duty on 'copolymers of polypropylene' favored the importer's argument that the duty was limited to specific polymers, excluding 'terpolymers'. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368603