(1.) We have heard the learned Advocates. In view of the fact that similar legal issues are involved in both the petitions, at the request of the learned Advocates, both the petitions are finally heard together.
(2.) Rule, Senior Standing Counsel Shri D.N. Patel appearing for the respondents waives service of rule in both the petitions.
(3.) The petitioners in both the petitions had imported 2-Ethy1 Hexanol (2EH) and Normal Butanol during the period commencing from February, 2000 to April, 2000. Anti-dumping duty, which was payable in respect of import of the said goods had been duly paid by the petitioners as determined under Notification No. 6/2000 dated 27th January, 2000. The said Anti-dumping duty had been determined under the provisions of Rule 13 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). As the amount payable in respect of the said import has been duly paid, according to the petitioners, nothing further was required to be paid. It is the case of the petitioners that under Notification bearing No. 109/2000 dated 18th August, 2000, Anti-dumping duty has been enhanced by the Union of India. By virtue of the Notification dated 18th August, 2000, the petitioners were called upon to pay higher amount of Anti-dumping duty though, the petitioners had already paid Anti-dumping duty which was in force at the time when the aforestated goods had been imported by the petitioners. As the petitioners were called upon to pay higher amount of duty in pursuance of Notification dated 18th August, 2000, which is having retrospective effect, the petitioners had challenged the validity of the order, whereby the additional Anti-dumping Duty Dumping Duty had been demanded. When an appeal was filed against the said orders, the appellate authority had directed the petitioners to pre-deposit the entire amount of difference, which the petitioners had to pay in pursuance of Notification dated 18th August, 2000.