TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any 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 Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia a/w. Mr. Ram Ochani. For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Y.R. Mishra a/w. Mr. Dhananjay Deshmukh. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Bharucha, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Mr. Kantharia, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 and and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises an issue on the 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 imposing antidumping duty in respect of goods in que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed principle of law that when the primary notification itself has lapsed on the expiry of the period as specified in the notification, there would be no question of an amendment being caused to the non-existing notification or in other words, the amendment was not to be carried out during the life time of the notification, was the view taken by the Supreme Court, thereby confirming the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India. The said position of law was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Gima Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. Anr. (supra) as noted above, wherein referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Anr. vs. M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by five years, i.e. up to January 01, 2014, expired, the Central Government was not empowered to issue any Notification after the said date, namely, on January 23, 2014, inasmuch as there was no Notification in existence the period whereof could be extended. The High Court, in the process, has also held that the Notification extending antidumping duty by five years, i.e. up to January 01, 2014 was in the nature of temporary legislation and validity thereof could be extended, in exercise of powers contained in second proviso to subsection (5) of Section 9A of the Act only before January 01, 2014. 40. Two 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, suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein our Court has set aside the order of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which had held that since antidumping duty is covered by Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply. This Court restored the issue to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and also examine whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable in the facts of the case. 8. In response, Mr.Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Revenue be directed to grant refund of the amount paid as anti-dumping duty after 25.7.2015. This in view of fact that the Delhi High Court in M/s.Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd (supra) rendered on 11.7.2014 had, while sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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, we are not in agreement with Mr. Raichandani when he submits that such a position in law is not likely to be considered in the proceedings which are pending before the CESTAT. 7. In the present case we have noted that the CESTAT is already seized of the matter. There are several grounds on facts and law which are raised. We are thus inclined to observe that the petitioner is not precluded from urging all contentions as raised in this petition before the Tribunal including to assert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
