SNEH ENTERPRISES Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the M/s. Sneh Enterprises, is whether Anti -Dumping Duty is imposable on goods imported by them.

(2.) Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported 'sealed maintenance free batteries' of Taiwan origin to be used in "UPS" on 16.4.2002 at Mumbai from where the goods were transhipped to the I.C.D., Tuglaqabad, New Delhi; that IGM was filed on 22.4.2002; that they filed Bill of Entry on 22.5.2002; that the Central Government has also imposed Anti -Dumping duty on lead acid batteries (Industrial) by issuing Notification No. 55/2002 -Cus dated 22.5.2002; that the Anti -Dumping duty is not applicable as the impugned goods had been imported into India much earlier on 22.4.2002; that the Tribunal in the case of CC, Chennai v. Suja Rubber Industries, 2002 (82) ECC 146 (T) : 2002 (142) ELT 586 (Tri) has held that on a clear reading of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, "it indicates that the duty has to be determined when the goods have been imported and are subject for clearance, while those which have already entered Indian territory and are warehoused have not been determined for anti -dumping and the notification does not indicate that it will have retrospective applicability." The learned Advocate contended that the said decision is squarely applicable in the present matter and the Notification imposing anti -dumping duty issued on a certain duty would be applicable to goods imported on or after that date; that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kiran Spinning Mills v. CC, 1999 (66) ECC 570 (SC) : 1999 (113) ELT 753 (SC) and Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CC, 1999 (113) ELT 358 (SC) regarding taxable event and drawing inference therefrom are erroneous in the face of two direct decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Suja Rubber Industries supra, and Indo -Rama Synthetics v. CCE, 2003 (156) ELT 349 (T).

(3.) The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the provisions of Section 15 of the Customs Act regarding 'date for determination of rate of duty' are not applicable for the purpose of levying anti -dumping duty since as per Sub -section (8) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act makes the provisions of Customs Act "relating to non -levy, short levy, refunds and appeals" only applicable to the anti -dumping duty; that as such Section 15 of the Customs Act is not attracted; that the provisions of Section 15 will be applicable only with effect from 10.9.2004 as Sub -section (8) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act has been amended by Section 76 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004; that by this amendment, provisions of Customs Act "relating to, the date for determination of rate of duty, non -levy, short -levy, refunds, interest, appeals offences and penalties" will be applicable in respect of anti -dumping duty. He mentioned that by this amendment, it is apparent that provisions of Section 15 of the Customs Act, were not applicable to anti -dumping duty prior to the amendment.