TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pieces each of CFL lamps while M/s. Orient Impex filed Bills of Entry on 15-11-2002 and 11-11-2002 for clearance of 1,52,000 pieces each of CFL lamps. The goods were classified under Chapter 8539 and assessed accordingly. Subsequently, the Government of India issued Notification No. 138/2002-Cus., dated 10-12-2002 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on all imports of CFL from People's Republic of China and Hong Kong and as per Para 2 of the said Notification, the anti-dumping duty was to be levied with effect from the date of imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty i.e. 21-12-2001. The validity of the provisional anti-dumping duty is only for 6 months. Hence it was in force only up to 26-6-2002. When the goods were imported, there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [2003 (158) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.)] wherein it is held that Retrospective effect can be given in case of curative and validating statute. He also referred to the opinion of the Ministry of Law, according to which anti-dumping duty can be levied during the interregnum period which is after the expiry of provisional anti-dumping duty and before imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty. 5. The learned Advocate referred to the Rule 13 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, according to which the provisional duty would be in force only for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the interregnum period, there was no charging provision for levy of provisional anti-dumping duty. To put in different words, there is no levy at all. The case would be different if the provisional anti-dumping duty has not lapsed. Even though there is a provision to extent the provisional anti-dumping duty to 9 months on the request of exporters, nothing has been done. Under these circumstances, the importers cleared the goods without payment of anti-dumping duty. In these circumstances, we find that the Notification determining final anti-dumping duty is repugnant to Rule 13 and Rule 20 of the above Rules. Hence we do not find any merit in the Revenue's appeals and the same are rejected. (Operative portion of the order has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
