2011 (8) TMI 883 - AT - Customs

Import of filament yarn - Notification 45/2006 - Serial no. 5 - Held That - that the goods were imported from the People s Republic of China. Under the impugned order, the applicant is liable to pay anti-dumping duty as provided under serial no. 5 which reads any country of export except China PR . The goods have been imported from the People s Republic of China, therefore the anti-dumping duty levied as provided under serial no. 5 is not sustainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of anti-dumping duty and penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
2. Interpretation of Notification no. 45/2006-Cus. dated 24.05.2006 regarding anti-dumping duty.
3. Goods imported from the People's Republic of China and imposition of duty under serial no. 5 of the Notification.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought a waiver of pre-deposit of anti-dumping duty and penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Revenue contended that the applicant is liable to pay anti-dumping duty as per Notification no. 45/2006-Cus. dated 24.05.2006. The applicant argued that since the goods were imported from the People's Republic of China, the duty levied under serial no. 5, which excludes China PR, is not applicable. The Tribunal considered this discrepancy and decided to hear the appeal after waiving the pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty.

2. The case revolved around the interpretation of Notification no. 45/2006-Cus. dated 24.05.2006 concerning anti-dumping duty. The relevant portion of the notification specified the description of goods, country of origin, country of export, and other details. The appellant imported goods declared as viscose filament yarn from the People's Republic of China. The adjudicating authority imposed anti-dumping duty under serial no. 5 of the Notification. However, it was observed that the goods were indeed imported from China PR, making the duty imposed under a provision excluding China PR unsustainable.

3. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the import of goods from the People's Republic of China. The imposition of anti-dumping duty under serial no. 5, which pertained to goods imported from any country except China PR, was deemed unsustainable in this context. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the applicant. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate interpretation and application of relevant provisions in determining the liability for anti-dumping duty based on the country of importation.