2014 (10) TMI 438 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Anti dumping duty - Held that - The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of goods declared as viscose filament yarn from the People s Republic of China. The adjudicating authority held that the goods are liable for anti-dumping duty as provided under serial No. 5 under Notification No. 45/2006-Cus., dated 24-5-2006 - There is no dispute that the goods are imported from the People s Republic of China and the country of manufacture is the People s Republic of China. Therefore the imposition of anti-dumping duty as provided under serial No. 5 of the Notification, which is in respect of any goods imported from any other country except the People s Republic of China, is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of anti-dumping duty, penalty, and fine.
2. Liability to pay anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 45/2006-Cus.
3. Interpretation of the term "Country of export except China PR."
4. Adjudication on the imposition of anti-dumping duty.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought a waiver of pre-deposit of anti-dumping duty, penalty, and fine amounting to specific figures. The case involved a dispute regarding the liability to pay anti-dumping duty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, along with a penalty and fine.

2. The Revenue contended that the applicant was liable to pay anti-dumping duty as per the provisions of serial No. 5 of Notification No. 45/2006-Cus., dated 24-5-2006. This notification specified conditions for the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported goods.

3. The applicant argued that the goods were imported from the People's Republic of China, challenging the imposition of anti-dumping duty under serial No. 5, which referred to "any country of export except China PR." The applicant asserted that since the goods were imported from China, the duty under serial No. 5 was not applicable.

4. The Tribunal noted that the goods were indeed imported from the People's Republic of China, making the imposition of anti-dumping duty under serial No. 5, which excluded China PR, unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, leading to the disposal of the stay petition.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and notifications.