Supreme Court: Section 17A PC Act Does Not Cover Bribe Demands Unrelated to Official Duty  ||  Supreme Court Directs Centre to Promote Interim Compensation Scheme for Road Accident Victims  ||  Karnataka High Court Upholds Homicide Charge Against Father for Letting Minor Son Drive  ||  Karnataka High Court Grants Bail to Pan Masala Maker in Rs. 42 Crore Cess Evasion Case  ||  Karnataka High Court: Advocates Practising Without Clearing AIBE May Face Criminal Action  ||  Allahabad HC Orders Scrutiny of UP Basic School Teachers’ Educational and Appointment Records  ||  AP HC: Fabricated Sale Agreements and Breach of Property Undertaking Constitute Perjury  ||  Supreme Court: State Cannot Acquire Temple Property Through Gift Deed  ||  Supreme Court: HC Registry Should Exclude Court Vacations When Listing Cases After Fixed Days  ||  Supreme Court Flags Stark Non-Compliance With Directions on CAPF Cadre Review    

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