2025-VIL-604-MAD-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-604-MAD-CU

CUSTOMS High Court Cases

Customs - Anti-dumping duty on 'Viscose Staple Fibre’, Sunset review, Product under consideration, Continuity of levy - The petitioner, an Indonesian company, had challenged various orders and notifications relating to the imposition and continuation of anti-dumping duty on viscose staple fibre exported from Indonesia - Before the expiry of the initial 5-year period, a sunset review was initiated in 2015 and the duty was extended for another year. Subsequent to the sunset review, the duty was further extended for 5 years in 2016 - The petitioner challenged the subsequent extensions and the sunset review process - Whether the continuity of the Anti-Dumping levy was valid, despite gaps between the expiry of one notification and issuance of the next - HELD - These Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed as none of the respondents are within the jurisdiction of this Court - Even otherwise, on merits also, as long as the sunset review was initiated before the expiry of the original notification, the subsequent extensions were valid, even if there were short gaps between the expiry of one notification and issuance of the next. Only if the Sunset Review is not initiated before the expiry of the period prescribed in Notifications imposing Anti-Dumping Duty, continuation of the levy cannot be permitted. Mere delay in issuance of Notification under the Customs Act, 1962 by the Central Government is not fatal to the levy - As per the Supreme Court's interpretation of the second proviso to Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, the mere existence of such gaps does not invalidate the extension - There is no requirement that a notification has to be issued by the Central Government under the first proviso to Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act only during the lifetime of the earlier notification for continuation of anti-dumping duty for a period beyond five years – The writ petitions are dismissed - Whether the change in the 'Product under Consideration' (PUC) during the sunset review process was valid - HELD – The changes made to the PUC by the domestic industry during the sunset review process were valid, as the Tribunal had allowed the changes after providing an opportunity to the parties to comment. The law does not prohibit such changes to the PUC during a sunset review - Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions challenging the orders of the Tribunal - HELD - As per Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, the proper remedy lies before the Supreme Court against the orders of the Tribunal relating to the determination of questions on the rate of duty or valuation of goods.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Biweekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Rules & Industry Preparedness
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?