9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Import of Compact Fluorescent Lamps, Country of Origin Declaration, Anti-dumping Duty Liability, Evidence Evaluation, Admissibility of Respondent's Statement
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order-in-appeal regarding the import of Compact Fluorescent Lamps. The respondent declared the country of origin as Malaysia, while the Revenue contended that the lamps seemed to be of Chinese origin, making them subject to Anti-dumping duty. The appellant presented evidence, including a certificate from the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, invoices, packing lists, and a country of origin certificate attested by the Malaysian Assistant High Commission in Madras, all supporting the Malaysian origin claim. The Revenue's main argument was based on a letter dated 22-5-03, where the respondent allegedly admitted that the goods were of Chinese origin. However, upon examination of the letter, it was found that the respondent had actually stated that they had ordered lamps of Malaysian origin and if found to be of Chinese origin, they were not interested in accepting the goods and requested permission for re-export. The respondent did not explicitly admit that the goods were of Chinese origin in the letter. Furthermore, the documents provided by the respondent, such as the invoice and packing list attested by the Malaysian High Commission, clearly indicated the Malaysian origin of the goods. As a result, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's claim of Malaysian origin for the Compact Fluorescent Lamps based on the evidence presented, despite the Revenue's argument regarding the respondent's letter. The decision highlighted the importance of thorough evaluation of evidence in determining the country of origin for imported goods and emphasized the need for clear and unambiguous admissions in legal proceedings.
|
