CESTAT upholds quashing of ADD on imported goods of Diethyl Thio Phosphoryl Chloride on Ground of Non Inclusion of Section 9A(8) of Customs Tariff Act [Read Order]
![CESTAT upholds quashing of ADD on imported goods of Diethyl Thio Phosphoryl Chloride on Ground of Non Inclusion of Section 9A(8) of Customs Tariff Act [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CESTAT-ADD-CESTAT-Upholds-Quashing-of-ADD-on-imported-goods-imported-goods-taxscan.jpg "CESTAT upholds quashing of ADD on imported goods of Diethyl Thio Phosphoryl Chloride on Ground of Non Inclusion of Section 9A(8) of Customs Tariff Act [Read Order]")
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the quashing of Anti Dumping Duty(ADD) on the imported goods of diethyl thio phosphoryl chloride on the ground of non-inclusion of section 9A(8) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Hyderabad Chemicals Ltd, the respondent-assessee imported goods from China and filed a bill of entry for...
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the quashing of Anti Dumping Duty(ADD) on the imported goods of diethyl thio phosphoryl chloride on the ground of non-inclusion of section 9A(8) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Hyderabad Chemicals Ltd, the respondent-assessee imported goods from China and filed a bill of entry for warehousing the goods were warehoused thereafter the assessee filed ex- bond bill of entry for clearance of the warehoused goods for home consumption and at the time of import of the goods, there was no levy of Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) on the goods Diethyl Thio Phosphoryl Chloride (DETPC) imported from China.
The revenue appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for quashing the demand for the anti-dumping duty imposed on the assessee.
Rajaraman, the counsel for the department contended that the demand of anti-dumping duty which was imposed on the assessee was as per the law and liable to be sustained. Also submitted that the decision made by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not as per the law and was liable to be deleted.
P.V.B. Chary, the counsel for the assessee contended that subsection (8) was amended to section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act to include the provisions of section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 only with effect from 19.08.2009 and therefore the import being before this date, the assessee was not liable to pay to ADD on the imported goods.
The Bench observed that the assessee is not liable to pay the Anti-Dumping Duty as the Notification was not in existence at the time of import of goods. The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue department
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
