2009 (3) TMI 630 - HC - Customs

Anti-dumping duty on import of Float Glass - petitioner disputes his liability to pay antidumping duty, as, according to him, reflective glass is excluded from the description of Float Glass, in respect of which anti-dumping duty has been imposed by Ext. P3 - petitioner made reference to Exts. P11 & P12. According to him these documents would show that reflective glass, were allowed to be imported in certain other ports in the country without levying anti-dumping duty - Held that - if there has been any omission on the part of the Department in levying duty at any place that will not justify interference levy of duty, if it is otherwise legal, court will not be justified in granting any relief in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed, it is clarified that the findings in the judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner agitating his liability before the appellate Forum that is available under the statute, which, shall decide the matter untrammelled by any of the observations made above, writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Dispute regarding liability to pay anti-dumping duty on imported reflective glass.
2. Interpretation of notifications excluding reflective glass from the description of Float Glass.
3. Impact of subsequent notifications on the exclusion of reflective glass from the duty.
4. Jurisdictional validity of imposing anti-dumping duty on reflective glass.
5. Consideration of other documents showing import of reflective glass without duty.
6. Availability of appellate forum for challenging liability.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an importer of reflective glass, contested the obligation to pay anti-dumping duty based on the classification of the imported product. The duty was imposed following a notification by the 1st respondent, requiring the petitioner to provide bank guarantees for duty payment to clear the goods.

2. The petitioner argued that reflective glass was excluded from the description of Float Glass subject to the anti-dumping duty as per notifications Exts. P6 and P7. These notifications specifically excluded reflective glass from the investigation and imposition of duty on Float Glass.

3. However, subsequent notifications, particularly Exts. P8 and P10, altered the description of the product under consideration for the duty, which no longer explicitly excluded reflective glass. The final notification (Ext. P3) imposing the duty did not contain the exclusion of reflective glass as seen in previous notifications.

4. The court examined the descriptions in the notifications and determined that reflective glass was not excluded from the duty on Float Glass. Consequently, the court found no jurisdictional issue in imposing the anti-dumping duty on reflective glass.

5. The petitioner referred to additional documents (Exts. P11 & P12) indicating that reflective glass was imported in other ports without duty. However, the court emphasized that decisions should be based on the official notifications' descriptions rather than potential omissions in duty imposition at specific ports.

6. Despite dismissing the writ petition, the court clarified that the petitioner could challenge their liability before the appellate forum as provided by the statute, ensuring an opportunity for further review and decision on the matter outside the scope of the current judgment.