Case: Commnr. Of Customs, Bangalore Vs. M/S. G.M. Exports


Decision reasoning: 1[ds]46. We also find force in the submission of learned counsel for the assessees that the revenues construction of Rule 20 would achieve indirectly what cannot be achieved directly, having regard to the mandatory language contained in Rule 13 second proviso. Here again a simple example would suffice. Say the provisional duty is levied at the rate of Rs. 50/- PMT and comes to an end after 6 months. 6 months later, a final duty is imposed again at the same rate of Rs. 50/- PMT with effect from the date of levy of the provisional duty. If learned counsel for the revenue were right, Rs. 50/- PMT could be recovered under Rule 20(2)(a) for the interregnum period as well which would, in effect, destroy the scheme of Rule 13 second proviso by extending the period of the provisional duty notification beyond a period of 6 months, which clearly cannot be done. We find therefore that on all these counts, the arguments of revenue cannot be countenanced47. It remains now to deal with the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court. After setting out the contentions of the respective parties and referring to the relevant statutory provisions and the WTO Agreement, the Bombay High Court arrives at a finding that Parliament has made a departure from the language used in the WTO Agreement and the Court must therefore give effect to such departure48. We have already held that this would fly in the face of all the judgments referred to in paragraphs 15 to 22 hereinabove, and principles (3) and (4) of paragraph 23 of this judgment which speak of how domestic legislation must be construed when it is made in furtherance of an international treaty. In particular, in the facts of these cases, it would also ignore the effect of Article 18.4 of the WTO Agreement, which expressly states that all the signatory member nations have to make their laws conform to the provisions of the WTO Agreement, something which the Central Government itself states in its internet website which deals with the law of anti-dumping49. The High Court goes on to state that the construction suggested on behalf of the assessee would lead to a manifest absurdity as there would be no reason or justification to hold that the levy of anti-dumping duty must sustain a break during the period between the expiry of the provisional duty notification and the issuance of a notification imposing a final anti-dumping duty. The High Court went on to hold that the object and purpose underlying Section 9A would be defeated, as for the interregnum period where both dumping and material injury to domestic industry are found, no anti-dumping duty can be issued. This conclusion again cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that if Rule 20(2)(a) were to be construed n the fashion suggested by the High Court, it would be ultra vires Section 9A for the reasons already given by us. Further, the object and purpose of Section 9A is to impose an anti-dumping duty in consonance with the WTO Agreement, which Section 9A gives full effect to. These basic points have been missed by the High Court in arriving at the aforesaid finding. Further, the High Court fails to give due importance in its judgment to Rules 13 and 21. We have already seen how Rule 21(1) envisages precisely the situation spoken of by the High Court, and yet states that, in the circumstances mentioned therein, despite dumping and material injury to the domestic industry, differential duty cannot be collected from the importer. In fact, the High Court goes on to say that the expression imposed and collected in Rule 21, not being there in Rule 20(2)(a), cannot therefore be imported into the said sub-rule, so that levied cannot mean imposed and collected. We have already held, in view of our construction of Rule 20(2)(a), that this need not be gone into. What has been missed by the High Court is that the expression levied has to be understood as levied under Rule 13 and once this is so, it becomes clear that such levy cannot exceed a period of 6 months or a maximum period of 9 months, as the case may be50. The Bombay High Court follows the Kerala High Court reasoning, which is to the same effect. For the reasons given by us in this judgment, we find it difficult to accede to such reasoning.