2011 (8) TMI 735 - AT - Customs

Anti Dumping Duty - Wrong classification by designated authority (DA) - Designated authority initiated proceedings on behalf of the Domestic Industry in regard to alleged dumping of PVC Paste Resin - Sunset review anti-dumping duty imposed afresh on a new product by enlarging the scope of the product under consideration - Held That - an avoidable instance of mis-classification by the D.A. It is high time that the D.A. takes on board a trained Customs specialist so that such classification faux pas do not recur. - PVC Paste Resin has remained the same during the original anti-dumping investigation as well as during the Sunset Review. The scope of the product under consideration has not been varied otherwise. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of anti-dumping duty on PVC Paste Resin.
2. Classification of PVC Paste Resin under Customs Tariff Headings.
3. Timeliness of the appeal and stay application.
4. Validity of the continuation of anti-dumping duty after the sunset review.
5. Alleged typographical error in the Customs Tariff Heading in the original investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on PVC Paste Resin:
The Designated Authority (D.A.) initiated an anti-dumping investigation based on a petition from M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. The investigation led to the imposition of anti-dumping duty on PVC Paste Resin under Customs Tariff Heading 3904.2110. The present appeal challenges the continuation of this duty following a sunset review, which recommended the duty on PVC Paste Resin under Customs Tariff Heading 3904.2210.

2. Classification of PVC Paste Resin under Customs Tariff Headings:
The appellant contended that the D.A. cannot impose anti-dumping duty on a new product by changing its classification from non-plasticized PVC Resin (3904.2110) to plasticized PVC Resin (3904.2210). The respondent argued that the product under consideration has remained the same (PVC Paste Resin or Emulsion PVC Resin) and that the classification change was a correction of a typographical error. The Tribunal noted that the original investigation and the sunset review both targeted PVC Paste Resin, which is correctly classified under 3904.2210, indicating the initial classification was incorrect.

3. Timeliness of the Appeal and Stay Application:
The respondent argued that the appeal and stay application were time-barred since the final finding was dated 26-4-2010, and the appeal was filed on 22-9-2010. However, the Tribunal noted that the Customs Notification was issued on 25-6-2010, making the appeal timely.

4. Validity of the Continuation of Anti-Dumping Duty after the Sunset Review:
The Tribunal examined whether the sunset review allowed for the continuation of the anti-dumping duty on the same product. It was concluded that the product under consideration, PVC Paste Resin, remained the same, and the scope had not changed. The classification correction from 3904.2110 to 3904.2210 was justified as PVC Paste Resin is classified under the latter heading.

5. Alleged Typographical Error in the Customs Tariff Heading in the Original Investigation:
The respondent and the D.A. argued that the original classification under 3904.2110 was a typographical error and that the correct classification should have been 3904.2210. The Tribunal acknowledged the error and emphasized the need for the D.A. to involve trained Customs specialists to avoid such errors. The Tribunal found that the correct classification of PVC Paste Resin is under 3904.2210 and that this correction does not invalidate the anti-dumping duty imposed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the stay application, finding that the classification correction did not alter the product under consideration. The anti-dumping duty on PVC Paste Resin under Customs Tariff Heading 3904.2210 was upheld. The main appeal was not disposed of at this stage, as other issues were not argued. The Registry was directed to list the main appeal in due course.