2014 (4) TMI 232 - AT - Customs

Demand of anti-dumping duty - Whether stainless steel cold rolled Coils having width of 1256 MM to 1259 MM are covered under Notification 86/2011 for imposing anti-dumping duty or not and whether the corrigendum issued on Feb, 7, 2012 is applicable retrospectively for the goods imported by the appellant having specifications of Ferritic Grade 1.4512 - Held that - The findings applying the corrigendum dtd Feb. 7, 2012 and the tolerance level fixed by Notification No. 86/2011-customs from the date of the imposition of anti-dumping duty is not in accordance with the law If the physical examination of the goods having average width of the goods imported is 1278 - 1279 mm, then said products were not covered for imposition of definitive anti dumping duty The mid-term review No.14/6/2008-DGAD dated 24.11.2009 also supports this - It is also found that the designated authority while recording the findings on definitive anti-dumping duty had specifically excluded the Cold Rolled Flat products of Stainless Steel of grade EN 1.4512 from the purview of the definitive anti-dumping duty. The corrigendum notified on Feb. 2012 can be made applicable only for the goods for which bills of entry are filed on or after Feb. 7, 2012 - The said corrigendum cannot be applied retrospectively for the goods which have already landed into and for which appropriate Bill of Entry were filed for the reason that an importer who has imported goods on which no anti-dumping was leviable cannot be saddled with the same by issuing a corrigendum and that too in a full-fledged mid-term review done by authority Relied on judgment in Mascot International vs Commissioner of Customs (Exp.) 2013 (11) TMI 600 - CESTAT MUMBAI and was held in the favour of the assessee. The scope of the examination was not for enhancement of the product scope i.e., width exceeding 1250 MM and product is defined as cold rolled flat products of stainless of weight of 600 MM upto 1250 MM - The intent of the levy of anti-dumping duty by the Authority is very clear that the product upto 1250 MM is liable for anti-dumping duty; that the Notification 86/2011 was issued in the background that in the absence of tolerance in the recommendation of corresponding Notification the products of width 1250 MM or lower are being declared as having width of 1251 MM to 1300 MM and thereby the anti-dumping duty is circumvented. This Notification came to levy for tolerance of ( ) 30 MM in the width - Any product having width more than 1250 MM are not leviable for anti-dumping duty - It is not the intent of the Authority to levy duty on 1280 MM - Admittedly, the width of the product on physical examination was found between 1256 MM to 1259 MM - Therefore Notification 14/2010 amended to Notification 86/2-11 is not applicable to the appellant - Thus question of levy of anti-dumping duty of the goods imported by the appellant does not arise - Impugned order is not sustainable - set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal Decided in favour of Appellants.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on Stainless Steel Cold Rolled Coils.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 86/2011-Customs and its retrospective effect.
3. Allegation of mis-declaration by the appellant.
4. Imposition of penalties on the main appellant and other appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on Stainless Steel Cold Rolled Coils

The main appellant was a regular importer of Stainless Steel Cold Rolled Coils during 2009-12, paying appropriate customs duty. The Government of India imposed definitive anti-dumping duty on these products via Notification No. 14/2010-Customs dated February 20, 2010. The designated authority later issued a corrigendum expanding the scope and tolerance limits for these products, notified by Notification No. 86/2011-Customs. The Customs authorities seized the appellant's consignments and issued a Show Cause Notice on April 13, 2012, leading to the Adjudicating Authority confirming the demand for anti-dumping duty, interest, and penalties.

Issue 2: Applicability of Notification No. 86/2011-Customs and its Retrospective Effect

The appellant argued that the corrigendum issued on February 7, 2012, and the tolerance limits should not be applied retrospectively. The Adjudicating Authority applied the corrigendum and the tolerance limits from the date of the original anti-dumping duty imposition. The Tribunal found that the corrigendum and tolerance limits could not be applied retrospectively for goods already imported and for which Bills of Entry were filed before February 7, 2012. The Tribunal cited previous cases, including Mascot International vs. Commissioner of Customs and Arti C Bhuta, which supported the view that products with a width beyond 1250 mm were excluded from the scope of anti-dumping duty.

Issue 3: Allegation of Mis-Declaration by the Appellant

The Adjudicating Authority held that the appellant mis-declared the product to evade anti-dumping duty. The appellant countered that the Bills of Entry clearly described the imported products, which were tested and found to be of the declared grade, and were finally assessed by customs authorities. The Tribunal found no basis for the mis-declaration allegation, as the products were accurately described and assessed.

Issue 4: Imposition of Penalties on the Main Appellant and Other Appellants

Penalties were imposed on the main appellant and other appellants, including the Cargo Clearing Agency. The Tribunal, having set aside the impugned order on merits, found no reason to impose penalties on any of the appellants. The Tribunal also noted that the Cargo Clearing Agency correctly filed all documents with customs authorities, and there was no cause for penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, and found that the corrigendum and tolerance limits in Notification No. 86/2011-Customs could not be applied retrospectively. The allegations of mis-declaration were dismissed, and no penalties were warranted against the appellants.