TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 29.06.2009 for clearance of the warehoused goods for home consumption. At the time of import of the goods there was no levy of Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) on the goods Diethyl Thio Phosphoryl Chloride (DETPC) imported from China. Later Notification no. 73/2009 dated 22.06.2009 was issued whereby ADD was imposed on the goods imported from China. The department was of the view that, respondent is liable to pay the ADD on the goods imported. Demand notice dated 17.09.2009 was issued for payment of ADD amounting to Rs.11,76,768 along with interest. The appellant contested the demand and after personal hearing, the original authority vide order dated 05.03.2012 confirmed the demand of ADD along with interest. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted. The sub section (8) to 9 A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 adopts the provisions of Customs Act for implementation of Anti-Dumping Duty Notifications. Prior to 19.08.2009, sub section (8) of Section 9 did not adopt provision of section 15 of Customs Act which relates to determination of the date on which the rate of duty applies. After amendment w.e.f. 19.08.2009, this provision is also included. The said subsection (8) before amendment reads as under: "The provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and the rules and regulations made there under, relating to non-levy, short-levy, refunds, appeals, offences and penalties shall, as far as may be, apply to the duty chargeable under this section as they apply in relation to duties le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rritory and are warehoused. 21. In this case, goods were cleared by the Customs Authorities without imposing any anti-dumping duty. It was at a later date the duties were sought to be imposed, wherefor a show cause notice was issued. 22. A Judgment, as is well known, is the authority for the proposition which it decides and not what can logically be deduced from Kiran Spinning Mills (supra) does not militate against a contention of the appellant. It, in fact, supports its contention. The question as to when import of goods is complete would depend upon contract between the parties and/or statute governing the field. It is not a part of common law that the import of the goods would be deemed to have been completed only when it passes the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration the purpose for which the same had been enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. Evidently, with a view to suppress the mischief, if any, Section 26 of the Finance Act, 2004, was brought into the statute book. It cannot, therefore, by no stretch of imagination be held that the Parliament intended to apply the provisions of Section 15 of the Customs Act in Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, prior to 2004. 25. While dealing with a taxing provision, the principle of 'Strict Interpretation' should be applied. The Court shall not interpret the statutory provision in such a manner which would create an additional fiscal burden on a person. It would never be done by invoking the provisions of another Act, which are n....