TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The appellants had imported CF Lamps without choke from China during August-December, 2002 without payment of anti-dumping duty, which was leviable on the said goods under Notification No. 128/2001-Cus. dated 21-12-2001 read with Notification No. 138/2002-Cus., dated 10-12-2002. The goods were provisionally cleared against bonds executed by the importers, which were valid for 6 months. The bonds were not renewed, nor was any such renewal requisitioned. No show-cause notice was issued by the department. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs, however, issued letters to the importers (appellants) proposing "finalisation of provisional assessments under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act" and directing the parties to submit doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs from the records that learned Commissioner (Appeals) heard Counsel for the assessees on 25-1-2006 and subsequently passed an interim order directing them to pre-deposit 75% of the respective amounts of duty within the time stipulated in his behalf. None of the parties deposited any amount. The appellate authority dismissed their appeals in the same manner it did in the earlier round of litigation. Hence the present appeals. 4. Learned Advocate representing the appellants in appeals at S. Nos. 1-6 submits that he was given to believe that the hearing which took place on 25-1-2006 before the Commissioner (Appeals) was a final hearing in the appeals and that his clients were taken aback at the receipt of the appellate Commissioner's inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernment gave retrospective effect to the above impost of anti-dumping duty and accordingly such duty was leviable on the goods during the above period of import. It is the main argument of learned Counsel that Notification No. 138/2002-Cus. giving retrospective effect to the earlier Notification was repugnant to Rule 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, hereinafter referred to as 'Anti-dumping Rules'. In this connection support is claimed from the decision of the Tribunal's Bangalore Bench in the following cases:- (i) Commissioner of Customs, Cochin v. Raghav Enterprises [2005 (189) E.L.T. 461 (Tri.-Bang.)]. (ii) Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel, we find that the above decision of the Anti-dumping Bench was not cited before the Bangalore Bench. Basic contentious questions emanate from the above rival arguments, but we are not inclined to enter into an enquiry at this stage inasmuch as we have heard other valid arguments of the Counsel for the present purpose. It was submitted by learned Counsel that there was no question of provisional assessments or finalisation thereof under Section 18 of the Customs Act in relation to levy of anti-dumping duty. After a perusal of the relevant provisions sub-section 8 of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, we find that, during the period of the subject imports, the assessment-related provisions of the Customs Act were not applicable to a....