Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 624 - HC - CustomsImposing antidumping duty on Nylon Filament yarn - Legality of the impugned notifications dated 13 January, 2012 and 19 January, 2017 issued by the Government of India in exercise of the provisions of Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in Gima Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [2017 (8) TMI 630 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], wherein referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT] has held that wo things which follow from the reading of the Section 9A(5) of the Act are that not only the continuation of duty is not automatic, such a duty during the period of review has to be imposed before the expiry of the period of five years, which is the life of the Notification imposing anti-dumping duty. Even otherwise, Notification dated January 23, 2014 amends the earlier Notification dated January 02, 2009, which is clear from its language, and has been reproduced above, However, when Notification dated January 02, 2009 itself had lapsed on the expiry of five years, i.e. on January 01, 2014, and was not in existence on January 23, 2014 question of amending a non-existing Notification does not arise at all. As a sequitur, amendment was not to be carried out during the lifetime of the Notification dated January 02, 2009. The High Court, thus, rightly remarked that Notification dated January 02, 2009 was in the nature of temporary legislation and could not be amended after it lapsed. The law as laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India is the law of land. Once the principle of law has been laid down by the Supreme Court, it is binding on all the Courts in the country, which would also include this Court and the Tribunal. For such reason, the petitioner is not agreed with, when he submits that such a position in law is not likely to be considered in the proceedings which are pending before the CESTAT. In the present case the CESTAT is already seized of the matter. There are several grounds on facts and law which are raised - it is required to observe that the petitioner is not precluded from urging all contentions as raised in this petition before the Tribunal including to assert its contentions that by virtue of the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court, if applicable in the facts of the present case, the petitioner would become entitled to refund of duty. Petition disposed off.
|