Judgment :- In W.P.No.4698/2002 Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the orders of 5th Respondent culminating in the assessment in Bill of Entry No.000223 dated 01. 2002 passed by the 5th Respondent. 2. In W.P.No.29014/2003, department challenges the order of Appellate Tribunal – final order No.1267/2002 dated 111. 2002. 3. Both Writ Petitions relating to imposing anti dumping duty on Bill of Entry No.00023 dated 01. 2002 and hence, both the Writ Petitions shall stand disposed of by this Common Order. 4. Brief facts which led to the filing of W.P.No.4698/2002 are as follows:- .(i) Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of trading photographic goods. Photographic papers being imported by the Petitioners company is classifiable under item 3703.90 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and attracts a basic customs duty of 25% in terms of Customs Notification 26/2001 dated 03. 2001. It also attracts a countervailing duty of 16% under classification 3703.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and 4% special additional duty of customs. .(ii) Notification No.149/2000 – Customs, dated 12. 2000 imposed anti-dumping duty on black and white Photographic Paper, both resin coated and fibre based, falling under sub-heading Nos.3703.10 and 3703.90 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, originating in or exported from the U.K., France and Hungary and imported into India. (iii) In addition to the Petitioners company there were other importers who are importing photographic paper from the suppliers specified in notification No.149/2000. At the instance of one of the importer viz., Agfa Gevaert A.G., CEGAT has struck down the notification No.149/2000. (iv) Petitioners company filed Bill of Entry No.00023 dated 01. 2002 for clearance of 1428 packages of photographic paper from bond out of a consignment imported by them during December 2001. The value declared for 1428 packages was Rs.4,64,467/-. In spite of objection from the Petitioner, 5th Respondent levied Anti Dumping duty to the extent of 2,65,997/- in terms of notification No.149/2000 which is challenged in W.P.No.4698/2002. 5. Heard both. 6. When the Writ Petitions came up for hearing, Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.4698/2002 has drawn the attention of Court to the decision of CEGAT, reported in 2001 (130) ELT 741 (Tri.-Del.) [Agfa Gevaert A.G. v. Designated Authority]. 5. Heard both. 6. When the Writ Petitions came up for hearing, Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.4698/2002 has drawn the attention of Court to the decision of CEGAT, reported in 2001 (130) ELT 741 (Tri.-Del.) [Agfa Gevaert A.G. v. Designated Authority]. In the said decision CEGAT (Anti-Dumping Bench has quashed the notification No.149/2000 dated 212. 2000. 7. The above said order of CEGAT was challenged by way of filing Writ Petition before the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.5567/2001. Observing that alternative remedy is being available, Delhi High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the department. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner drawn the attention of Court to Gazette notification wherein the Government has withdrawn the notification No.149/2000. Gazette Notification reads as under:- "Having regard to the above and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of injury) Rules, 1995 thereof, para K the final Finding notified vide Notification No. 24th October 2001 – DGAD dated the 24th October stands replaced as under:- In view of the reasons specified in the CESTAT order 10/2001-AD dated 18th May, 2001, the Designated Authority hereby recommends withdrawal of anti dumping duty on imports of Black and White Photographic paper including both resin coated/fibre based from UK, France and Hungary earlier recommended vide 19/1/99 dated 24th October 2000 and imposed by Central Government vide 149/2000 – Customs dated 21st December 2000." 9. Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel has submitted that there is legal validity to impose Anti Dumping duty as Bill of Entry No.00023 dated 1. 2002 is an Ex-Bond Bill of Entry. Learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel further submitted that withdrawing notification No.149/2000 is subject to the condition "except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission" i.e. it is effective till 17. 2005 and therefore, Anti Dumping duty collected prior to 17. 2005 stands legally justified. 10. Though notification was issued withdrawing notification No.149/2000, the fact remains that notification No.149/2000 was struck down by CEGAT in 2001 (130) ELT 741 (Tri.-Del.) [Agfa Gevaert A.G. v. Designated Authority]. While so, it cannot be contended that there is legal validity to impose Anti Dumping duty and what was collected prior to 17. 2005 stands legally justified. 11. 10. Though notification was issued withdrawing notification No.149/2000, the fact remains that notification No.149/2000 was struck down by CEGAT in 2001 (130) ELT 741 (Tri.-Del.) [Agfa Gevaert A.G. v. Designated Authority]. While so, it cannot be contended that there is legal validity to impose Anti Dumping duty and what was collected prior to 17. 2005 stands legally justified. 11. When the notification No.149/2000 has been struck down by the Competent Court and when the notification itself has been withdrawn by the department, nothing survives for consideration in the Writ Petition filed by the Department (W.P.No.29014/2003). 12. In view of quashing of notification No.149/2000 and withdrawal of the said notification, the impugned order in W.P.No.4698/2002 cannot be sustained. 13. W.P.No.4698/2002:- In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of assessment in Bill of Entry No.000223 dated 01. 2002 is set aside. No costs. 14. W.P.No.29014/2003:- In the result, is dismissed. No costs.