Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2007 (5) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)].  - There are two applications before us, both by the appellants, one for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of an amount of anti-dumping duty and an amount of penalty and the other for early disposal of the appeal itself. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... impugned order, wherein the learned Commissioner demanded anti-dumping duty of Rs. 36,22,900/- from the appellants in terms of the aforesaid Notification and also ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act (with option for redemption against fine of Rs. 3 lakhs), besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the party under Section 112(a) of the Act. One of the prese....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... states that the data received by the Directorate of Statistics from various Customs Houses indicate that similar imports were allowed to be cleared without payment of anti-dumping duty at Chennai, Delhi and Navi Mumbai ports. The annexure to the affidavit seeks to support this plea contained in the affidavit. In the circumstances, according to Sr. Counsel, the appellants have a strong case agains....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Tri.-Del.) as well as the decision of the Tribunal (Mumbai Bench) in the case of Philips India Ltd. v. CC - 2004 (93) ECC 377 (Tri.). After inspecting the items displayed before us, we have to accept the claim of ld. Counsel for the limited purpose of the present application. The appellants seem to have a good case against the demand of anti-dumping duty. Even otherwise, Section 129E is expressly....