2009 (7) TMI 1060 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods.
2. Levy of anti-dumping duty.
3. Valuation of the imported goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellant contended that 19,600 kgs of imported goods were "Acrylic Waste" and should be classified under sub-heading 5505.10. The Tribunal's earlier order had mandated retesting of the samples or cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner if retesting was not possible. The adjudicating authority, however, decided the classification issue against the appellant based on the cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner, who had retired and did not possess relevant records. The Tribunal noted that the cross-examination failed to provide concrete evidence regarding the classification criteria. Additionally, the HSN classification criteria for fibre waste were not adequately considered by the revenue.

2. Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The appellant argued that anti-dumping duty was not applicable. The Tribunal referred to the case of Beeta Exports v. CC, Amritsar, which stated that the imposition of anti-dumping duty depends on the correct classification of goods. Since the revenue failed to prove that the goods were acrylic fibre, the Tribunal concluded that the levy of anti-dumping duty was unwarranted.

3. Valuation of the Imported Goods:
The appellant challenged the valuation based on the classification under heading 5006.30. The Tribunal observed that the de novo adjudication did not provide sufficient evidence to classify the goods under this heading. The appellant's claim that the goods were "Acrylic Waste" was upheld, and the valuation based on the incorrect classification was rejected.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to provide conclusive evidence for the classification of the goods as acrylic fibre. The cross-examination of the retired Chemical Examiner did not yield reliable information, and the retesting of samples was not conducted. Consequently, the appellant's classification of the goods as "Acrylic Waste" was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the anti-dumping duty and the incorrect valuation. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.