SC Orders BCI Probe After Party Denies Engaging Advocates in Fraudulent Settlement Case  ||  SC Orders District-Wise Survey to Ensure POSH Act Compliance by Employers  ||  NCLT: No Sale of Assets Below 25% Reserve Price Cut Under Liquidation Regulations  ||  SC Bars Action Against 10-Yr Diesel & 15-Yr Petrol Vehicle Owners in Delhi NCR  ||  SC: Convict Completing Fixed-Term Life Sentence Can Be Freed Without Seeking Remission  ||  SC Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao as Ombudsman of Bihar Cricket Association  ||  SC Seeks NHRC, NCW, NCPCR Replies on Pleas Against Islamic Divorce Practice 'Talaq-e-Hasan'  ||  SC Seeks NHRC, NCW, NCPCR Replies on Pleas Against Islamic Divorce Practice 'Talaq-e-Hasan'  ||  Delhi HC: Income Tax Evasion Complaint Not Premature Despite Pending Reassessment  ||  Patna HC:Before Harshest Punishment, Authority Must Consider Officer’s Reply    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved