Page 224 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

134 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

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 as-
sessee 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. - From the plain reading of the above Rule 21(1) it is clear that in case
where the Central Government has imposed Anti-dumping duty on provisional basis and
at the time of finalization if the Anti-dumping duty is fixed on the higher side then the
differential duty shall not be collected from the importer. [paras 4, 4.1, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8]
Appeals allowed
CASES CITED
Assistant Director of Mines and Geology v. Deccan Cements Ltd. —
2008 (222) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — Distinguished ....................................................................... [Paras 3, 7]
Auro Textile v. Commissioner — 2010 (253) E.L.T. 35 (Tribunal) — Distinguished ................ [Paras 3, 7]
Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. v. Union of India —
1999 (110) E.L.T. 118 (S.C.) — Distinguished ....................................................................... [Paras 3, 7]
Collector v. Dhiren Chemical Industries — 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Distinguished ......... [Paras 3, 7]
Collector v. Re-Rolling Mills — 1997 (94) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) — Distinguished ............................... [Paras 3, 7]
Commissioner v. Akash Trading Co. — 2010 (253) E.L.T. 734 (Ker.) — Distinguished .......... [Paras 3, 7]
Commissioner v. G.M. Exports — 2015 (324) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.) — Relied on ................................ [Paras 2, 5]
ITI Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2008 (228) E.L.T. 78 (Tribunal) — Distinguished ......................... [Paras 3, 7]
J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 2005 (186) E.L.T. 3 (Raj.) — Distinguished ............... [Paras 3, 7]
Merchem Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2014 (300) E.L.T. 81 (Tribunal) — Followed ...................... [Paras 2, 5.1]
Motiram Tolaram v. Union of India — 1999 (112) E.L.T. 749 (S.C.) — Distinguished ............. [Paras 3, 7]
R.C. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2005 (188) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) — Distinguished ..... [Paras 3, 7]
Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. Commissioner —
2007 (211) E.L.T. 505 (Tribunal) — Distinguished ............................................................... [Paras 3, 7]
Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. — 1996 (86) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 3, 7]
Venus Enterprises v. Commissioner — 2006 (199) E.L.T. 405 (Mad.) — Distinguished .......... [Paras 3, 7]
Venus Enterprises v. Commissioner — 2007 (209) E.L.T.A61 (S.C.) — Distinguished ............ [Paras 3, 7]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Vinod Lukose, Authorised Representative, for
the Respondent.
[Order per : Ramesh Nair, Member (J)]. - The brief facts of the case are
that the appellant have imported New Tyres, Tubes and Flaps of Chinese origin.
The value declared in the Bill of Entry came to USD 97.79 per set. The Central
Government issued a Notification No. 106/2006-Cus., dated 9-10-2006 whereby
Anti-dumping duty was imposed on Tyres/Tubes/flaps, originating in, or ex-
ported from, people’s Republic of China and Thiland. In the Bills of Entry at the
time of assessment, Anti-dumping duty was also considered, however, since
there was no difference between the rate of Anti-dumping duty and the value
declared by the appellant, the Anti-dumping duty in the Bill of Entry was men-
tioned as ‘nil’. Subsequently the Anti-dumping duty was finalized vide Notifica-
tion No. 88/2007-Customs, dated 24-7-2007 whereby the Final Anti-dumping
Duty was fixed @USD$135.66 per set of Tyres/Tubes/flaps. On the basis of this
higher Anti-dumping duty finalized as compared to provisional Anti-dumping
Duty vide Notification No. 106/2006-Cus. The department has issued a show
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  224