2014 (2) TMI 1239 - AT - Customs

Imposition of Anti-dumping duty under Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975- Import of Viscose Filament Yarn from the People s Republic of China for which bills of entry submitted shows Shanghai and goods of China Origin- Liability to pay anti-dumping duty as provided under Serial No. 5. which read any country of export except China PR - Held that there is no dispute that the goods were imported from the People s Republic of China and country of origin is also the People s Republic of China. Therefore the imposition of anti-dumping duty as provided under Serial No. 5 of the Notification, which is in respect of any goods imported from any other country except People s Republic of China, is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of Appellant

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of anti-dumping duty demand under Notification No. 45/2006-Cus. for goods imported from the People's Republic of China.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the demand of anti-dumping duty imposed on two consignments imported from the People's Republic of China. The appellant argued that since the goods were imported from China, they should not be subject to anti-dumping duty under Serial No. 5 of Notification No. 45/2006-Cus., which excludes China PR from the list of countries subject to the duty. The appellant presented Bills of Entry showing China as the country of origin and loading port as Shanghai to support their claim.

The Revenue, however, supported the lower authorities' findings that the goods, declared as Viscose Filament Yarn from China, were indeed liable for anti-dumping duty under Serial No. 5 of the notification. The relevant portion of the notification was referenced to clarify the duty applicability based on the country of export and origin.

Upon examination, it was established that the goods were unquestionably imported from the People's Republic of China, with China being the country of origin as well. Consequently, the imposition of anti-dumping duty under Serial No. 5, which pertains to goods imported from any country except China PR, was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the duty demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal provisions, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the disputed anti-dumping duty demand on goods imported from the People's Republic of China under Notification No. 45/2006-Cus.