https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445733 The Bombay HC disposed of a petition challenging antidumping duty notifications on Nylon Filament yarn dated 13 January 2012 and 19 January 2017. The court held that antidumping duty continuation is not automatic under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and must be imposed before the five-year notification period expires. Following SC precedent in Union of India vs. Kumho Petrochemicals, the court noted that notifications are temporary legislation that cannot be amended after lapsing. Since CESTAT was already seized of the matter, the petitioner was directed to raise all contentions before the Tribunal, including claims for duty refund based on established legal principles. en-us Mon, 30 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2023 13:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445733 The Bombay HC disposed of a petition challenging antidumping duty notifications on Nylon Filament yarn dated 13 January 2012 and 19 January 2017. The court held that antidumping duty continuation is not automatic under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and must be imposed before the five-year notification period expires. Following SC precedent in Union of India vs. Kumho Petrochemicals, the court noted that notifications are temporary legislation that cannot be amended after lapsing. Since CESTAT was already seized of the matter, the petitioner was directed to raise all contentions before the Tribunal, including claims for duty refund based on established legal principles. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 30 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445733