2005 (11) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Appellant. Shri Hitesh Shah, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. -  Heard both sides. The dispute relates to two imports. The first one was imported under Into Bond Bill of Entry for warehousing on 1-1-2002 and subsequently cleared under Ex-bond Bill of Entry dated 11-2-2002. The second import was made under Into Bond Bill of Entry dated 25-2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....kata - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 45 (Tri-Kol) 3. He states that provisions for Safeguard duty are similar to provisions of Antidumping duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and hence no Safeguard duty is payable on the impugned imports in view of the aforementioned decisions of the Tribunal since the duty was levied subsequent to the date of imports. 4. The learned SDR argues that in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oms duty and hence the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court cannot be applied to Anti-dumping and Safeguard duties. 6. After hearing both sides, we find that the lower appellate authority has not gone into the merit of the case and has rejected the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering all aspects of t....