2023 (11) TMI 624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kantharia, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 and and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises an issue on the legality of the impugned notifications dated 13 January, 2012 and 19 January, 2017 issued by the Government of India in exercise of the provisions of Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 imposing antidumping duty in respect of goods in question, which are Nylon Filament yarn, as described in the said notifications. The petitioner has pointed out in the memo of the petition that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27 December, 2016, to which a reply came to be submitted by the petitioner on 30 March, 2017 and 20 April,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otification, was the view taken by the Supreme Court, thereby confirming the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India. The said position of law was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Gima Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) as noted above, wherein referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Ltd. (supra), the Court had made the following observations: 5. The Apex Court in Union of India vs. M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Co. (supra) was considering an identical fact situation as is evident from the following events/dates : (a) On 2.1.2009, the Respondent issued a Notification u/s. 9A (1) and (5) of the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mping duty by five years, i.e. up to January 01, 2014 was in the nature of temporary legislation and validity thereof could be extended, in exercise of powers contained in second proviso to subsection (5) of Section 9A of the Act only before January 01, 2014. 40. Two things which follow from the reading of the Section 9A(5) of the Act are that not only the continuation of duty is not automatic, such a duty during the period of review has to be imposed before the expiry of the period of five years, which is the life of the Notification imposing anti-dumping duty. Even otherwise, Notification dated January 23, 2014 amends the earlier Notification dated January 02, 2009, which is clear from its language, and has been reproduced above, Howev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable in the facts of the case. 8. In response, Mr.Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Revenue be directed to grant refund of the amount paid as anti-dumping duty after 25.7.2015. This in view of fact that the Delhi High Court in M/s.Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd (supra) rendered on 11.7.2014 had, while setting aside the amending Notification, has stated that "the petitioners are entitled to refund of amounts paid till date". This view of the Delhi High Court has been upheld by the Apex Court in Union of India .vs. M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. (supra). We find that there was no occasion for the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court to discuss the ....