Bombay HC: Clarifies Procedure for Executing Foreign Decrees  ||  Supreme Court: Bureaucratic Delay No Excuse  ||  Supreme Court Grants Full Disability Pension Arrears to Veterans  ||  Delhi HC: Workman Cannot Claim Section 17(B) of the ID Act Wages after Reaching Superannuation Age  ||  Allahabad HC: Caste by Birth Remains Unchanged Despite Conversion or Inter-Caste Marriage  ||  Delhi High Court: Tweeting Corruption Allegations Against Employer Can Constitute Misconduct  ||  Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities Lack Jurisdiction over Multi-State Establishments  ||  Kerala High Court: Arrest Grounds Need Not Mention Contraband Quantity When No Seizure is Made  ||  SC: Silence During Investigation Does Not Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation to Deny Bail  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Re-Examine Answer Keys Even in Judicial Service Exams    

Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. G.M. Exports and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (23 Sep 2015)

Anti-dumping duty not payable in ‘gap’ between provisional and final duty

MANU/SC/1062/2015

Customs

Disagreeing with findings of the Bombay and Kerala High Courts, the Supreme Court held that assessees were not liable to pay anti-dumping duty in the interregnum period between the provisional and final impost. It determined an absurdity would result if the rationale of the Department was acceded to. Reading Indian legislation against ratified WTO provisions, the Court noted a difference in the manner in which the duration of duties was treated: whereas Indian legislation only spoke of the date of imposition, the WTO instead provided for a period in which the duty could be collected.

Relevant : Section 9A Customs Tariff Act, 1975 Act Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority and Ors. MANU/SC/4106/2006 ACCE, Calcutta Division v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. MANU/SC/0377/1972

Tags : ANTI DUMPING   DUTY   GAP   PROVISIONAL   FINAL  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved