https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446024 The CESTAT Bangalore dismissed the importer's appeal seeking exemption from anti-dumping duty on reflective glass during 06.01.2009 to 22.05.2009. While earlier and subsequent notifications excluded reflective glass from anti-dumping duty, Notification No.4/2009-Cus dated 06.01.2009 did not contain this exclusion. The tribunal held that customs authorities cannot rectify omissions in notifications as they are issued based on DGAD findings. Following SC precedent in State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal, each assessment period is distinct and exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly per their plain language. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld. en-us Mon, 20 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:41:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446024 The CESTAT Bangalore dismissed the importer's appeal seeking exemption from anti-dumping duty on reflective glass during 06.01.2009 to 22.05.2009. While earlier and subsequent notifications excluded reflective glass from anti-dumping duty, Notification No.4/2009-Cus dated 06.01.2009 did not contain this exclusion. The tribunal held that customs authorities cannot rectify omissions in notifications as they are issued based on DGAD findings. Following SC precedent in State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal, each assessment period is distinct and exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly per their plain language. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 20 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446024