LexCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE versus M/S. G. M. EXPORTS & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015] 14 S.C.R. 848 A COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE B v. MIS. G. M. EXPORTS & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 3889 of 2006) SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 [A. K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Anti-dumping - Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on C Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - rr.20, 21 and 13 - Levy of anti-dumping duty during the interregnum between the expiry of a provisional duty notification and the imposition of final anti-dumping duty - Whether anti-dumping duty imposed with respect to imports D made during the period between the expiry of the provisional anti-dumping duty and the imposition of the final anti- dumping duty is legal and valid - Held: Correct construction of r.20 of the Rules is determinative of the question raised herein - Sub-rule (2)(a) of r.20 enables the levy of a final E anti-dumping duty from the date of imposition of a provisional duty so as to convert the provisional measure into a final measure, or so as to take within its ken the provisional anti- dumping duty already imposed- The final anti-dumping duty only incorporates the provisional anti-dumping duty within F itself, but in the manner provided by r. 13 - Thus, such incorporation can only be the period upto which the provisional duty can be levied and not beyond - Thus understood, it is clear that both literally, and in keeping with the object sought to be achieved - that is the making of laws G in conformity with the WTO Agreement, there can be no levy of anti-dumping duty in the "gap" or interregnum period between the lapse of the provisional duty and the imposition of the final duty - Such interpretation makes it clear that clause 10.2 of the WTO Agreement is reproduced in the same H 848 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE v. 849 · M/S. G. M. EXPORTS sense though not in the same form in sub-rule (2)(a) - The A same result therefore as is envisaged in clause 10.2 is achieved by the said construction- that is anti-dumping duty · may be levied retroactive Iv for the period for which provisional measures have been applied -The said construction is in consonance with the principles that the WTO Agreement is 'B · intended to be applied by the various signatory nations in a uniform manner - This can only be done by construing the language of s. 9A read with the Rules in the same sense as that of the WTO Agreement- r.21, in turn, is made to carry out what is stated in clause 10.3 of the WTO Agreement- C r.21 (2) echoes what is already found in s.9A(2)- If provisional anti-dumping duty is found to be higher than the final anti- dumping duty, the differential shall be refunded to the importer - But sub-rule ( 1) goes a step further and states that if the anti-dumping duty finally imposed is higher than the o provisional duty already imposed and collected, the differential shall not be collected from the importer - lf the revenue were right, despite the fact that such differential cannot be collected from the importer under r. 21 ( 1) for the period that the provisional duty notification is in force, during E the interregnum period, the full amount of final duty is liable to be recovered from the importer- This would turn r.21(1) on its head and result in an absurdity-r.21(1) also answers the contention of the Revenue that the object of anti-dumping laws would be defeated if it were found that dumping and F material injury having been found, yet no anti-dumping duty can be levied - Customs Tariff Act - s.9A - General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)-Art. VI- European Community Council Regulation No. 1225 of 2009 dated 30.11.2009. International Law- Treaty obligations- How domestic legislation must be construed when it is made in furtherance of an international treaty - Held: ( 1) Article 51 ( c) of the Constitution is a Directive Principle of State Policy which G H 850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 14S.C.R. A states that the State shall endeavour to foster respect for international Jaw and treaty obligations -As a result, rules of international Jaw which are not contrary to domestic Jaw are followed by the courts in this country- This is a situation in which there is an international treaty to which India is not" a B ·signatory or general rules of international law are made applicable - It is in this situation that if there happens to be a conflict between domestic law and international law
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.