Topic
CESTAT rules that entities not involved in exports cannot be used to label an exporter as non-cooperative in anti-dumping investigations. The decision clarifies that only exporting-related parties are relevant for dumping margin calculations under the 1995 Rules, impacting trade remedy proceedings for multinational corporations.
CESTAT Mumbai holds that Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995 creates a non-discretionary obligation to refund provisional duties when not confirmed, rendering unjust enrichment defenses under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act inapplicable. This protects importers from prolonged financial uncertainty and clarifies that statutory refund mechanisms override equitable doctrines in customs law.
CESTAT Kolkata rules that anti-dumping duty cannot be levied retrospectively for the period between the lapse of provisional duty and issuance of final duty, reinforcing WTO compliance and Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act. This protects importers from unexpected financial burdens during assessment gaps.