SC: Daily-Wage Status Cannot Deny Annual Increment After Regularisation  ||  SC: Exam Marks Cannot Substitute Mandatory Qualification under Recruitment Rules  ||  SC: Converting Civil Disputes Into Criminal Cases is a Widespread Practice  ||  Kerala High Court Sets Aside KAAPA Preventive Detention Order Against BJP Councillor R Suguthan  ||  Bombay High Court Punishes Two Lawyers for Contempt over Threats to Trial Judge  ||  MP HC Plea Challenges Municipal Law Over Simhastha Kumbh Road Widening and Compensation  ||  Calcutta High Court Orders DNA Tests to Ascertain Biological Identity in Alleged Baby-Swap Case  ||  Bombay HC Confiscates Man's Phone for Filming Proceedings, Levies Rs. 10,000 Costs  ||  Bombay HC: Accused Must Be Produced Before Court on Plea to Extend Investigation Period  ||  Delhi High Court Directs Criminal Complaint Against Six CBI Officers for False Statement in Court    

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