TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion issued on 23.1.2008 was amended on 24,3.2008 bringing name of that manufacturer to appear in column No.8 of the original Notification dated 23.1.2008 prescribing the levy of anti-dumping duty as exporter of the subject goods. Revenue says that when name of the manufacturer was not appearing in column NO.8 of the notification dated 23.1.2008, the export shall fall under SI.No.23 of the said Notification being any exporter as envisaged by the entry. 3. For convenience of reading both Sl.Nos.19 and 23 of the Notification dated 23.1.2008 are extracted below:- S. No. Sub Heading Description of the goods Specification COD DOE Producer Exporter Duty amount Unit of Measurement Currency 19 390421 Photopolymer of chloride Monomer (PVC) Suspension Grade As per annexure Republic of china any Tianjin Dagu Chemical Co. Ltd. Tianjin Bohai Chemical Industries Import and Export Corporation 1040 MT Rupees 23 390421 do do Republic of china any Any other combination of producer-exporter 2702 MT Rupees 4. Ld. Counsel Shri Piyush Kumar appearing for appellant submits that anti-dumping duty is leviable on the goods exported from China being manufactured in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....escribing trade remedy measure as a curative one. 7. Revenue's claim that import of the appellant shall fall under No.23 of notification does not appeal to common sense. Amending notification had its intention making clear that apart from the exporter specified in column 8 of S.No.19, if the producer named under that serial number also exports subject goods, such goods shall be liable to anti-dumping duty. It is well settled law that generality excludes specific. Therefore, appellant's imports fall under the purview of Sl.No.19 of the Notification dated 23.1.2008 since country of origin producer and exporter belong to China and levy of anti-dumping duty was goods specific and country specific. This being most specific case than the generalization prescribed by sl. No.23 of the Notification, case of the appellant is not possible to be excluded from Sl .No. 19 from levy of anti-dumping duty on imports. Accordingly amount of anti-dumping duty prescribed in column No.9 of the Notification against Sl.No.19 thereof shall apply to the import of subject goods made by appellant. Such observation and reasoning calls for allowing the appeal. It is ordered accordingly. (Dictated & pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as expressed the view that the 'rationale behind the amendment was to overcome the shortcomings in the earlier Notification whereby subject goods exported by producer-exporter escaping antidumping duty were brought to levy from the date the definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed'. Member (Judicial) has further opined that the amending Notification had made its intention making clear that apart from the exporter specified in column 8 of Sr. No.19 if the producer named under Notification also exports the goods, such goods shall be liable to anti-dumping duty. 11. I am unable to support the view expressed by the Ld. Member (Judicial) for the following reasons: 11.1 The Notification dated 23.01.2008 contained two specific entries. The first at Sr. No. 19 covered the goods manufactured by Tianjin Dagu Chemical Co. Limited and exported by Tianjin Bohai Chemical Industries Import and Export Corporation and the second entry at Sr. No. 23 covered the goods manufactured and exported by any other producer-exporter combination. In my opinion, given the complexion of the Notification the scope of the entry at Sr. No.23 was wide enough to cover all other combinations, including the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded by Notification No. 38/2008-Cus dated 24.3.2008. In the absence of any declaration in the Notification to the effect that inclusion of the name of Tianjin Dagu Chemical Co, was from the date of the original Notification, this contention is not acceptable. 11.4 Notifications issued under the powers conferred by any legislation are subordinate legislation and the authority vested with powers to issue the same has the authority to make it operational retrospectively. But such an intention should emerge from the expressions used in the Notification itself. In the present case there is nothing in the Notification to indicate that the changes would take effect from the date when definitive anti-dumping duty was untially imposed on the product imported by the Appellants. For want of such an express intention in the Notification, it is difficult for me to accept the proposition that the amendment to the entry at Sr. No, 19 was retrospective. 12. In this regard, reference is invited to Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgement in case of CC (Preventive) vs. Goyal Traders-2014 (302) ELT 529 (Guj.) wherein Hon'ble High Court held that in the absence of any indication in the stat....