Supreme Court

Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. G.M. Exports and Ors.

MANU/SC/1062/2015

23.09.2015

Customs

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

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 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
MANU/SC/0377/1972

Tags : Anti dumping duty gap provisional final

Share :