Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 752 - CESTAT CHENNAILevy of Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) - Diethyl Thio Phosphoryl Chloride (DETPC) imported from China - applicability of amendment brought forth to subsection (8) of Section 9A of the Tariff Act - HELD THAT:- The sub section (8) to 9 A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 adopts the provisions of Customs Act for implementation of Anti-Dumping Duty Notifications. Prior to 19.08.2009, sub section (8) of Section 9 did not adopt provision of section 15 of Customs Act which relates to determination of the date on which the rate of duty applies. After amendment w.e.f. 19.08.2009, this provision is also included. It can be seen that prior to 19.08.2009, subsection (8) did not specify that the provisions contained in Section 15 of Customs Act would be applicable to determine the date on which the rate of duty / ADD is payable - The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SNEH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [2006 (9) TMI 179 - SUPREME COURT] was dealing with the situation prior to amendment to subsection (8) of 9 A and held that ADD would be payable at the time of import of the goods. Taking note of the amendment, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that appellant is not liable to pay ADD. The decision in the case of M/S. LSML PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (VICE-VERSA) [2022 (2) TMI 682 - CESTAT CHENNAI] relied by the Ld. AR is not applicable to the facts of the case before us as the decision related to imports made after amendment to subsection (8) of 9 A. The appellant is not liable to pay the Anti-Dumping Duty as the Notification No.73/2009 dated 22.06.2009 was not in existence at the time of import of goods. The impugned order does not call for any interference. The same is sustained. Appeal dismissed.
|