9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a Miscellaneous Application seeking the recall of a Stay Order passed ex parte, pertaining to the liability of anti-dumping duty on a consignment of Phenol imported by the Appellant. Recall of Stay Order: The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides, accepted the applicant's contention that the Stay Order was passed ex parte, and therefore, recalled the Stay Order dated 12-9-2006 to consider the matter afresh. Liability to Anti-Dumping Duty: The dispute revolved around the liability to anti-dumping duty of a consignment of Phenol imported by the Appellant, which was initially treated as of European origin due to the shipment from Finland, a country in the European Union. Country of Origin Dispute: The Appellant argued that the goods were actually manufactured in Russia and only transited through Finland for onward shipment to India, emphasizing that transit does not alter the country of origin. The Tribunal, after examining the records, concluded that the goods were of Russian origin and exported from Russia, clarifying that transit or trans-shipment does not change the country of origin. Legal Precedent and Decision: The Counsel for the appellant cited the case of Lloyds Steel Industries to support the argument that the country of shipment cannot be equated with the country of origin. The Tribunal found that since the goods were of Russian origin, not European Union origin as per the notification imposing anti-dumping duty, the duty was not applicable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant with any consequential relief. This judgment highlights the importance of accurately determining the country of origin in cases involving anti-dumping duty and the significance of legal precedents in supporting legal arguments before the Tribunal.
|
