Time limit for issuance of notification imposing anti-dumping duty extended by section 6 of the 2020 Act

Convestro (Hong Kong) Limited Vs Designated Authority (CESTAT Delhi)

CESTAT Delhi held that provisions of section 6 of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (the 2020 Act) extends the time limit specified in the Tariff Act for issuance of the notification imposing anti-dumping duty.

Facts- M/s Convestro (Hong Kong) Limited, an exporter of ‘Flexible Slabstock Polyol’ produced in Singapore, has filed this appeal to assail the customs notification dated 09.06.2020 issued by the Central Government for imposition of anti-dumping duty on the subject goods for a period of five years from the date of publication of the notification on the basis of the sunset review final findings dated 17.03.2020 of the designated authority recommending continuation of definitive anti-dumping duty.

Two issues arise for consideration in this appeal. The first is whether the Central Government could have issued the customs notification on 09.06.2020, as the period for which the existing anti­dumping duty had earlier been imposed by notification dated 07.04.2015 expired on 06.04.2020. The second is whether because of the provisions of section 6 of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 relating to “Relaxation of the Time Limit under certain Indirect Tax Laws‟, the period for issue of the notification by the Central Government under the first proviso to section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, stood extended upto 31.12.2020.

Conclusion- Under section 6 of the 2020 Act, the time limit specified under the Tariff Act for issuance of a notification falling during the period from 20.03.2020 to 29.09.2020 shall stand extended to 30.09.2020. It is the contention of the appellant that under the first proviso to section 9A(5) of the Tariff Act, the notification for imposition of anti-dumping duty, in a review, has to be issued before the date on which the anti-dumping duty earlier imposed by a notification comes to an end. In other words, according to the appellant, there is time limit within which the notification has to be issued. Thus, section 6 of the 2020 Act would extend the time limit to 30.09.2020 since in the present case, the imposition of the anti-dumping duty by an earlier notification came to an end on 06.04.2020 and this date is between the two dates, namely 20.03.2020 and 29.09.2020. The appellant cannot be permitted to contend that in the context of the first proviso to section 9A(5) of the Tariff Act, the time limit for issuing the notification for imposition of anti-dumping duty is before the last date on which the existing anti­dumping duty comes to an end and also contend, when it comes to the provisions of section 6 of the 2020 Act, that there is no such time limit which can be extended in terms of section 6 of the 2020 Act. If the contention of the appellant that the notification has to be issued during the life time of the existing anti-dumping duty under the first proviso to section 9A(5) is not accepted, then the notification dated 09.06.2020 would be a valid notification. If the contention of the appellant is not accepted, the notification dated 09.06.2020 would still be a valid notification because the time limit gets extended in view of the provisions of section 6 of the 2020 Act. Learned counsel for the appellant is not justified in contending that the notification has to be issued during the life time of the existing duty because of a pre­condition and not because of time limit.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.