Case Law Details
C.J.Shah & Co. Vs C.C.Kandla (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
The issue involved in the present matter is whether Anti-dumping duty on Propylene Glycol, which was imposed by Notification No. 105/2004-Cus. dtd. 08.10.2004 and which came to an end on 08.10.2009 by virtue of Section 9A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, can be demanded in respect of goods imported after 08.10.2009, when the same had not been extended before the said expiry on 08.10.2009 and whether the extension after the said expiry by Notification No. 117/2009-Cus., dated 13-10-2009 is valid in law.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. Observes that once a notification enforcing anti-dumping duty is expired and non-existent, such non-existent notification cannot be extended. In the facts of the present case, the Notification No. 105/2004-Cus., admittedly expired on 8-10-2009. Thereafter, the said notification was extended vide Notification No. 117/2009-Cus., dated 13-10-2009. Since the Notification No. 105/2004-Cus. was expired on 8-10-2009, on 13-10-2009 the Notification No. 105/2004-Cus. was not in existence. Accordingly, on 13-10-2009, it could not have been extended. Therefore, the result is that no antidumping duty can be levied in view of Notification No. 105/2004-Cus. which was extended vide Notification No. 117/2009-Cus. during the period after 8-9-2009. Accordingly, the demand is not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
By following the ratio of above judgment, we hold that the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is not sustainable.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
