Page 10 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

viii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

SUBJECT INDEX
[CASE LAW : CUSTOMS, EXCISE & EXIM]
Ad hoc Exemption anticipated at time of payment of duty, limitation for
refund not applicable duty having been paid under deemed protest - See
under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ......................... 3
Amendment of Shipping Bill for conversion to MEIS scheme allowed
notwithstanding non-filing of ‘declaration of intent’ within stipulated
time - See under EXIM ............................... 49
Anti-dumping duty on import of tyres, tubes and flaps - Final duty
determined more than provisional duty - Imports made during
interregnum period i.e. between date of lapse of provisional Anti-
dumping duty imposed under Notification No. 106/2006-Cus. and date
of imposition of final Anti-dumping duty under Notification No.
88/2007-Cus. - Anti-dumping duty mentioned as ‘Nil’ in Bills of Entry as
there was no difference between rate of Anti-dumping duty and value
declared by assessee - Revenue raising demand of differential duty on
the ground that Rule 21 of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment
and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for
Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 inapplicable as Anti-dumping duty
on provisional basis neither imposed nor collected from assessee - HELD
: At time filing of Bills of Entry, Anti-dumping duty was imposed and
since Anti-dumping duty arrived at, was zero, assessee was not required
to make any payment on assessment of Bills of Entry - Imposition and
collection of Anti-dumping duty at time of assessment of Bill of Entry,
clearly established - Moreover, in case of any difference between rate of
Anti-dumping duty in provisional notification and final notification,
differential amount of Anti-dumping duty, ought not to be collected -
Therefore, only because at time of assessment Anti-dumping was ‘nil’,
differential Anti-dumping duty as per Final Notification cannot be
demanded - In terms of said Rule 21(1) ibid assessee not liable to pay
differential Anti-dumping duty - Impugned orders set aside - Rule 21 of
Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-
dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury)
Rules, 1995 — Harsh Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla (Tri. -
Ahmd.) ......................................... 133
Appeal - Appealable order - All orders including self-assessment appealable
- Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 — Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v.
Narsingh Ispat Limited (Tri. - Kolkata) ........................... 118
— Revision is not appeal - See under REVISION ................... 95
Appeal by Department in PMLA matter - Limitation - Condonation of delay
- Maximum limit to condone delay as per Section 42 of Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2005 being (60 days + 60 days) 120 days, appeal
filed beyond the period of limitation - High Court having no power to
condone the delay beyond 120 days, delay not condonable — Assistant
Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi v. Omar Ali Obaid Balsharaf (Del.) ....... 60
— to Appellate Tribunal in Customs House Agents cases -
Maintainability/Jurisdiction - Whether remedy of appeal available with
revenue under Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962, against decision under
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  10