ORDER
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. The above miscellaneous application seeking modification of the stay order No. S/562/WZB/2004/C-I pronounced on 12.3.2004 came up for consideration on 2.6.2004. The Bench in the above cited order directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 6,50,000/- towards duty demanded within eight weeks and report compliance on 31.5.2004.
2. The issue pertained to anti-dumping duty leviable on normal butanol imported and cleared by the applicant. The department collected provisional anti-dumping duty prescribed under notification 6/2000 dated 27.1.2000 on the said goods when the goods were ex-bonded by the applicant. It so transpired that the designated authority by notification 109/2000-Cus. determined final anti-dumping duty leviable on the said goods with retrospective effect under the powers vested with it under Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order confirmed the differential duty between what was collected in accordance with rate prescribed under notification 6/2000 (provisional) and the one finally determined by notification 109/2000. This Bench considered the various submissions advanced by the applicant, including the submission that under Rule 21 of the Customs Tariff (Antidumping duty on dumped articles) Rules, 1995 which inter alia prescribed that the difference between the duty provisionally determined and the one finally determined shall not be demanded, and directed pre-deposit of Rs. 6,50,000/- pending the final outcome of the appeal. The Bench was of the view that Rule 21 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping duty on dumped articles) Rules, 1995 seems contrary to the provisions of Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act. Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act would prevail over the said Rules.
3. The applicant now brought to our notice a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad which, while disposing of a special civil application No. 12243 of 2003 in the case of Jagriti Plastics Ltd v. UOI, held that in view of the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules cited supra, the petitioners before the court should not have been called upon to pay any amount by way of pre-deposit.
4. In deference to the above decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, we modify our stay order No. S/562/WZB/2004/C-I pronounced on 12.3.2004 and waive pre-deposit of duty during the pendency of the appeal.
5. The miscellaneous application is allowed.