AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Anti-Dumping Duty On Dumped Articles And For Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, there is no provision of Refund in the case of Review of Anti Dumping Duty under Rule 23 ibid? (ii) Whether Tribunal is correct in allowing Refund, whereas the conditions of Section 9AA of Customs Tariff Act, 1995 and Rule 21 A of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment And Collection Of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles And For Determination Of Injury) Rules, 1995 has not been fulfilled? (iii) Whether Tribunal is correct in Relying upon the Madras high court judgment in the case of Vetcare organics, whereas the Judgment has been passed different set of facts in the case of Advance license and it is specifically ordered that Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f imposition of anti dumping duty. It states that where any article from any country or territory to India Is imported at less than its normal value, then upon the importation of such articles into India, the Central Government cannot, by notification, impose an anti-dumping duty in excess of the margin of dumping in relation to such article. In respect of imports of phenol originating in or exported from Taiwan and USA, the DGAD vide final Findings dated 09.02.2012 determined for the period of Investigation from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 that imports of phenol from Taiwan and USA were at lower dumping margin with no Injury to the Domestic Industry and recommended the withdrawal of levy of anti dumping duty. 3.3 The said deter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de F. No. 15/31/2010- DGAD dated 09.02.2012, the DGAD has in paragraph No.88 of the said findings recommended that the Authority is of the opinion that there is no need for the continued imposition of anti-dumping duties on phenol originating in and exported from Chinese Taipei and USA and the same is required to be withdrawn. Based on the said recommendation, the Ministry of Finance issued a Notification No. 14/2012-Customs (ADD) dated 29.02.2012. 3.5 Further, the DGAD's recommendation was only to the extent of discontinuance of the imposition of anti-dumping duties on phenol originating in and exported from Chinese Taipei and USA The DGAD has nowhere recommended for grant of retrospective benefit and withdrawal of the same. Similar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... omitted to be done before such suppression". Hence, it is clear that this expression has not been held ultra vires universally, it has been held so only in specific case based on the facts of that particular case. 8. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Khanchandani, has submitted that there is no provision which enables the importers to claim refund of anti-dumping duty, which is already levied and hence, the impugned judgment and order may be quashed and set aside. 9. The facts recorded by the Tribunal are not in dispute. The Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties (DGAD) vide final findings dated 07.01.2008 recommended the imposition of anti-dumping duty on phenol originating in or exported from Korea RP, Taiwan and USA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so far as the petitioner is concerned. 13. In the present case, it is not in dispute that, by Notification dated 29.02.2012, the expression "except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission" was incorporated while rescinding the earlier Notification dated 03.03.2008. The Directorate General of Anti- Dumping Duty considered the relevant aspects and accordingly recommended that there was no need for the continued imposition of anti-dumping duty on phenol originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei and the USA, and that the same be withdrawn. Based on this recommendation, the Ministry of Finance issued the Notification dated 29.02.2012 rescinding the Notification dated 03.03.2008, with a clear stipulation that....