9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported goods of Thailand origin under specific notifications. Analysis: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported Synthetic Butadine Rubber of Thailand origin. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the duty, considering the goods to be exported from Japan due to the involvement of a Japanese trader/exporter. However, the appellant argued that since the goods were imported from Thailand and their origin was also Thailand, the notifications invoking anti-dumping duty for specific countries like Japan did not apply. The appellant contended that the mere presence of the exporter's office and LC in Japan did not change the actual origin and export of the goods. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant Notifications No. 107/99-Cus. and 73/2000-Cus., which required the goods to originate in or be exported from specific countries like Japan to attract anti-dumping duty. It was observed that while the imported goods matched the specified goods in the notifications, they were of Thailand origin, not Japan. The goods were manufactured in Thailand and shipped from Thailand, not Japan. Despite the trader having its office in Japan and issuing invoices from there, the Tribunal emphasized that the actual export took place from Thailand to India. Therefore, the goods did not fall within the scope of the notifications for imposing anti-dumping duty based on the country of origin and export specified in the notifications. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order imposing anti-dumping duty, ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision highlighted that the goods being of Thailand origin and exported from Thailand did not meet the criteria outlined in the notifications for levying anti-dumping duty. The appeal was allowed, and any consequential relief due under the law was granted to the appellants.
|
