2013 (10) TMI 1202 - AT - Customs

Origin of goods - Imposition of anti dumping duty - Re export of goods on payment of redemption fine - Goods declared as manufactured in Malasia but later found to be Chinese products - Import of one set of plastic injection moulding machine - Sl. No. 12 to Notification No. 47/2009-Cus. dated 12.5.2009 - Held that - the veracity of any document is also depending upon the contents of that document. It is seen that the country of origin certificate as produced by the importer has not specifically certified the goods in question are origin of Malaysia. The expression produced and processed as mentioned in the certificate are different and distinct in nature. Apart from that, the time of examination of the machines by the Customs officers, it is seen that the goods were manufactured in China by M/s. Ningbo Bole Import & Export. Co. Ltd. China on the basis of the technical literature and marking on the machines. Serial No. 12 to Notification No. 47/2009-Cus. dated 12.5.2009 provides that goods manufactured in China, even if exported from a country other than China, it would be liable for anti-dumping duty. Goods were not prohibited for imports - Since, the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 the same has to be allowed for redemption even for the purposes of re-export - Court allow the re-export of the impugned goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty imposed by the LAA under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 112(a) ibid respectively. I also uphold the penalty imposed on Shri Chandradeep Baid, Managing Partner of the importer s firm under Section 114AA - Decided partly against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported goods.
2. Validity of country of origin certificate.
3. Mis-declaration of goods and imposition of penalties.
4. Allowance of re-export of goods by Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 1: Imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported goods:
The case involved the import of a plastic injection moulding machine where the goods were initially declared as originating from Malaysia to avoid anti-dumping duty. However, investigations revealed the goods were of Chinese origin, leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duty. The importer contested the imposition, claiming they switched to importing from Malaysia after the duty was levied. The tribunal found that the goods were indeed manufactured in China, as evidenced by technical details and markings, rendering the appeal against the duty imposition meritless.

Issue 2: Validity of country of origin certificate:
The importer presented a certificate of origin from Malaysia, stating the goods were produced or processed in Malaysia. However, the tribunal noted that the certificate did not explicitly confirm the goods' Malaysian origin. It was observed that the customs authorities have the right to scrutinize such certificates, especially when evidence points to a different country of manufacture. The tribunal upheld the authorities' conclusion that the goods were manufactured in China, dismissing the importer's arguments based on the country of origin certificate.

Issue 3: Mis-declaration of goods and imposition of penalties:
The case involved allegations of mis-declaration to evade anti-dumping duty, with the authorities proposing penalties on the importer and the managing partner. The importer argued against the penalties, claiming no mis-declaration occurred and citing a shift to importing from Malaysia post-duty imposition. However, the tribunal found that mis-declaration indeed took place, as evidenced by the Chinese origin of the goods. Consequently, the penalties imposed by the authorities were deemed justified, and the appeal against them was dismissed.

Issue 4: Allowance of re-export of goods by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) permitted the re-export of the goods, considering the case details and relevant precedents. The tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the plastic injection moulding machine was not a prohibited item and that the penalties imposed were reasonable. The re-export was allowed upon payment of fines and penalties, with a specified timeline for completion. The tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's decision, leading to the dismissal of all appeals filed by both the importer and the Revenue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment comprehensively covers the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the tribunal's reasoning behind the final decision.