9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... araman, Member (T)]. - Revenue has filed this appeal against the OIA No. 153/2003-Cus., dated 17-11-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. 2. The respondents imported 56,800 pieces of CFL lamps through Cochin Port on 26-11-2002. The goods were cleared on payment of duty at the rate of 30%+16%+4%. Subsequently, the Government, by Notification No. 138/2002-Cus., d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The demand for short levy was raised in pursuance of Notification No. 138/2002 dated 10-12-2002. Para 2 of the Notification indicates that the levy is w.e.f. 21-12-2001. In the present case, goods were imported on 26-11-2002 and hence anti-dumping duty is clearly chargeable on the goods. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not proper and legal. (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which provides for retrospective levy of duty, has removed the disability for non-demand of duty which was not in existence at the time of the import of the goods. (v) In the light of the above said statutory provisions and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is found that the retrospective levy of duty is as per law. Since neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... six months. In the present case, when the goods were imported, the Provisional Anti-dumping Duty lapsed. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that retrospective effect cannot be given to cover a period when the levy itself was not in force. 7. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. From the facts of the case, it is very clear that when the goods were imported, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
