The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), ruled that anti-dumping duty cannot be Demanded on Propylene Glycol from USA Imported after 08.10.2009.
The appellant,C.J.Shah& Co, imported two consignments of Propylene Glycol from USA falling under CTH 29053200 and filed two Bills of Entry and cleared the goods, which were duly assessed by the Customs. In respect of the said import, the Anti-dumping duty was levied as per the Notification No. 117/2009-Cus., dated 13-10-2009 extending the Notification No. 105/2004-Cus., dated 8-10-2004.
Subsequent to such assessments and clearances of the goods, Less Charge Demand/SCN dtd. 17.11.2009 was issued to the Appellant under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 demanding Anti –dumping duty along with interest.
In adjudicating, the Additional Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand. Being aggrieved with the order Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order. Therefore, the appellant filed the present appeal.
The issue involved in the present matter is whether Anti-dumping duty on Propylene Glycol, which was imposed by Notification No. 105/2004 dtd. 08.10.2004 and which came to an end on 08.10.2009 by virtue of Section 9A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, can be demanded in respect of goods imported after 08.10.2009, when the same had not been extended before the said expiry on 08.10.2009 and whether the extension after the said expiry by Notification No. 117/2009 dtd. 13.10.2009 is valid in law.
J.C. Patel, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue involved in this matter stands settled in the Appellant’s own case in C.J. Shah & Co. v. CCE. The ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case and accordingly the imports made by the appellants after the expiry of said Notification No. 105/2004 dtd. 01.10.2004 which came to an end on 08.10.2009 are not liable to anti-dumping duty.
The Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member relied on the appellants own case wherein it was held that “Therefore, the result is that no antidumping duty can be levied in view of Notification No. 105/2004- Cus. which was extended vide Notification No. 117/2009-Cus. during the period after 8-9-2009. Accordingly, the demand is not sustainable.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
