TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 949
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh its officers is seeking to levy anti-dumping duty for clearances made after 02.07.2018 without any authority of law through Customs Notification 33/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 30.06.2017 issued under Section 9A(5) extending duty imposed under Customs Notification 34/2012-Customs (ADD) dated 03.07.2012 (hereafter referred as "Notification") by one year till 02.07.2018 in terms of maximum period prescribed therein. 2. The petitioner firm regularly imports soda ash for its plants from several countries. The soda ash, originating in, or exported from, China, EU, Kenya, Iran, Pakistan, Ukraine and United Sates and imported into India is classifiable under Heading 283620 of the first schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereafter referred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017 was issued wherein levy of ADD continued beyond the expiry period until the final outcome of the order of the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court of Gujarat on 11.06.2018 disposed of all applications in the subject matter and remitted the matter back to the Designated Authority. In the meantime, the DGAD rendered the final findings vide proceedings F.No.7/5/2017- DGAD dated 14.12.2018 concluding that the continuation of anti-dumping duty is not warranted and accordingly, did not recommend the extension of the anti-dumping duty on import of soda ash from the respective countries. 5. The petitioner till 02.07.2018 was paying all duties of customs including anti-dumping duty on soda ash when imported from countries that were subject t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Government the authority to continue Anti-Dumping Duty pending the outcome of the Sunset Review for a further period not exceeding one year. The essential requirements for such continuation are: (i) the Sunset Review ought to have been initiated before the expiry of the five year period of levy of Anti-Dumping Duty; (ii) the inquiry has not concluded within the said period; (iii) a prima facie view is formed by the Government that continuance of the Anti-Dumping Duty would be necessary, and (iv) such extended period would not exceed one year from the date on which the first five years expires. The phrase "may continue to remain in force", assumes that there is a levy which exists and its continuance i.e. it carrying forward- without a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty in existence for it to be extended. In the present case there was cessation of duty on 05.05.2013 and again on 05.05.2014, therefore, there was no duty on two dates which could have been extended. xxx xxx xxx 23 ........... The Rule cannot override the Act. The Act has fixed a period for completion of Sunset Review within one year from the date of expiry of the initial five-year levy and it is in this one-year period that the Government must form a view that the cessation of duty would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Therefore, it is only within this period that it may extend i.e. without breaking the continuity of the previous duty or its modified version, for a further period of five years. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Customs, Chennai Commissionerate - II and Ors. (W.P. No. 30628 of 2018 and W.M.P. No. 35714 of 2018), wherein the High Court of Madras allowed the writ petition and held that the respondents cannot prevail upon the petitioner to protect the interest of the Revenue towards the anti-dumping duty in the absence of any statutory right available at the relevant time for levying and collecting such duty. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: "6. There is no dispute to the fact that the anti-dumping duty was imposed in pursuant to the Notification issued as stated supra. It is also not in dispute that the right to collect such anti-dumping duty got expired on 02.07.2018. Even otherwise, as it is admitted by the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned standing counsel for the respondents, Mr. Ashim Sood could not dispute that the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act could not enable the collection of duty in this case after 02.07.2018. Further, the decision in Varahi (supra) was also not contested. 12. The above discussion shows that that the original imposition in the present case was by way of the Notification dated 03.07.2012 and was valid till 02.07.2017. The levy was extended in the exercise of power under second proviso to Section 9A(5) of the Act through Customs Notification 33/2017 dated 30.06.2017 by a year till 02.07.2018. No notification extending duties can now be issued in terms of the settled law. Further, the law on the issue raised in the present petition is wel....