Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 975 - HC - CustomsLevy of ADD - Plain Gypsum Plasterboard - imported from China PR, Indonesia, Thailand, and UAE - N/N. 26/2017-Cus.(ADD) dated 7th June, 2017 - whether the impugned notification, dated 7th June, 2017, is sustainable in law in view of the interpretation of Section 9A(5) of the CTA by the Supreme Court in Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited. [2017 (6) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that Section 9A(5) of the Act and its proviso do not mandate a public notice or a Gazette Notification as a pre-condition for initiation of sunset review investigation - Held that: - What appears to have weighed with the Supreme Court in Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited was the void or gap between the expiry of the original notification and the issuance of the notification extending the ADD i.e., between 1st and 23rd January, 2014. That case is distinguishable from the present case on the basis of this single fact. The facts in Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited revealed the existence of a sizable hiatus of more than 20 days between the two notifications i.e., one continuing the ADD and the original ADD notification. That is, however, not the case here as the intention of the Central Government to continue the ADD without a gap is evident in the present case. There is no hiatus as such between the original notification imposing the ADD and the impugned notification continuing it. If indeed, in terms of Section 5 (3) of the GCA, which by analogy could be extended to notification issued by the Central Government as well, the notification comes into operation “immediately on the expiration of the day preceding its commencement”, it takes us to the point where there is no gap whatsoever between the expiration of the old notification with the commencement of the new. The key words are “immediately on the expiration.” It is not possible to accept the submission of Mr. Sethi that the impugned Notification dated 7th June, 2017 was issued after the expiry of the original ADD Notification which came to an end at the midnight of 6th June, 2017. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|