News Update

Former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planing drugs to frame lawyerCentre receives Rs 18.5 lakh crore tax revenue upto Feb monthUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayExpert Committee on developing GIFT IFSC as 'Global Finance and Accounting Hub' submits report to IFSCAIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEADefence Production issues notification for re-organisation of DGQAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of Lokpal
 
Cus - SCN was to finalise assessment only without any proposal to levy anti-dumping duty, therefore, order imposing ADD is without any basis: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, NOV 24, 2017: WHEN the matter came up for hearing, the Bench enquired as to whether there was any challenge to the incidence of levy of anti-dumping duty in the present appeal or whether challenge was made only against classification to attract the levy or not.

The appellant informed that classification was not being challenged, but levy of anti-dumping duty had been made under misconception of law for which the matter could be adjudicated by the Bench.

Since the Revenue did not contradict the proposition of the appellant, the matter was heard.

The Appellant submitted that the goods imported were declared as "Styrene Butadiene Co-Polymer",classified under CTH 40021100 and such goods were provisionally cleared.

Subsequently, assessment thereof was finalized by the impugned order, levying antidumping duty on such goods in terms of Notification No. 100/04-Cus, without change of classification by Revenue.

The appellant emphasized that the product under consideration by the Designated Authority was Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) of 1500 series, 1700 series and 1900 series covered under CSH 4002.19 of the CTA, 1975 but not the goods covered by CTH 4002 1100;that goods of these two tariff headings being different from each other, no anti-dumping duty was leviable on the goods imported. [Rishiroop Polymers P. Ltd. v. Designated Authority & Addl. Secretary - 2006-TIOL-26-SC-AD refers]

The AR sought to justify the demand.

The Bench extracted portions from the SCN issued by the adjudicating authority while finalizing the provisional assessment, the impugned order and observed –

"9. There is no whisper of any reason in the show-cause notice to disturb the classification claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the classification of the imported declared by the appellant under CTH 40021100 remained untouched by this order. Anti-dumping notification indicates that the goods falling under customs heading Nos. 3903 and 4002 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 were subject to levy of anti-dumping duty. Accordingly, levy was confined to the goods of hearing 4002.19 since anti dumping investigation was confined to the goods covered by heading 4002.19. Therefore there cannot be any mis-conception about the product under consideration. Notification no. 100/2004-Cus dated 26.09.2004 was issued pursuant to sunset Review arising out of the final findings of the designated authority made on 02.06.1999. That Authority confined his scope of investigation into the goods covered by above tariff heading in the Sunset Review which was subject matter of levy of definitive duty…

11. It may be stated that while issuing show-cause notice, learned adjudicating authority had not examined the classification based on the report of the Laboratory. The show-cause notice issued in 2006 was to finalise the assessment only, without any proposal to levy anti-dumping duty. There was no reference to the character and nature of the imported product also therein. The Notification No. 100/2004-Cus dated 26.09.2004 does not intend to levy anti-dumping duty on the product imported by the appellant…"

In fine, both the appeals were allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-4134-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023