By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, AUG 02, 2016: THE Petitioner imported PVC Resin Suspension Grade S65D from Taiwan and the supplier of the goods was M/s. Tricon Energy UK Ltd., the producer/manufacturer being M/s.Formosa Plastics Corporation, Taiwan. The Petitioner filed Bill of Entry dated 12.11.2014. The goods were assessed under Customs tariff Heading 39042110 and cleared. Subsequently, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the ground that the goods were assessed and cleared without being subjected to levy of antidumping duty in terms of Serial No.8 of Notification No.27/2014 – ADD dated 13.06.2014 and demanding ADD. The petitioner submitted their reply and during the course of personal hearing submitted that there is no requirement that the goods should be physically exported from the European Union and that the country of export having been mentioned in Serial No.5 in the table found in the Notification No.27/2014 has to be interpreted to mean that the country of supplier/exporter in the case is United Kingdom.

After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that the issue stands cleared in view of the Corrigendum dated 22.01.2016 issued to the Notification. The relevant entry before and after corrigendum reads as under:

Before:

After:

The High Court held:

+ This corrigendum is in partial modification of the table as found in the Notification No.27/2014 – ADD dated 13.06.2014. The settled law being a corrigendum is deemed to be a correction in the original order and therefore, whatever effect the corrigendum seeks to grant would be with effect from the date of Notification No.27/2014 – ADD dated 13.06.2014.

+ Thus, the question of insisting that the goods had to be physically shipped from the country of export is not necessary as has been clarified by the corrigendum dated 22.01.2016. In the light of the above, the impugned orders in original calls for interference. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed.

(See 2016-TIOL-1601-HC-MAD-CUS)