2015 (3) TMI 512 - AT - Customs

Levy of anti dumping duty - Notification No.72/01 dated 28.06.2001 - Enhancement in duty - Held that - The appellant mis-declared the country of origin of the goods to be Taiwan while the country of origin and export was Thailand. There is no dispute on the levy of anti-dumping duty. Therefore it may be said that the value mis-declared related to mis-declared goods. Once such fraud is detected the goods render to be confiscated being smuggled goods under section 2 (39) of Customs Act 1962. Accordingly appellant looses all right to take plea to legalize the illegality. Therefore, we do not disturb the enhanced value arrived at by Revenue. This is in relation to Customs duty. - Decided against assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of anti-dumping duty on past imports.
2. Retrospective application of higher anti-dumping duty rates.
3. Calculation errors in anti-dumping duty and additional customs duty.
4. Enhanced assessment of goods value due to misdeclaration.
5. Penalty imposition and conditions for penalty payment.
6. Final decision on the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The first issue raised was regarding the applicability of anti-dumping duty on past imports. The judgment clarified that provisional duty higher than definitive duty results in a refund, but a higher definitive duty does not apply retrospectively. The authority was directed to calculate the duty considering both provisional and definitive duty notifications.

2. The second contention addressed the retrospective application of higher anti-dumping duty rates. The judgment emphasized that no higher rate shall be applied retrospectively, and if the definitive duty is lower than provisional duty, a refund is admissible.

3. Moving on to the third issue concerning calculation errors in anti-dumping duty and additional customs duty, it was highlighted that both duties are independent of each other. The calculation of anti-dumping duty should be based on the prescribed benchmark and landed value, without confusion between the two duties.

4. The fourth count of argument involved the enhanced assessment of goods value due to misdeclaration. The judgment noted that misdeclaration of the country of origin led to the goods being considered smuggled under the Customs Act, forfeiting any right to challenge the enhanced value determined by the revenue.

5. Regarding the imposition of penalties, the Tribunal had previously ordered a penalty limited to 25% of the customs duty levy, subject to payment within 30 days. The appellant was advised to comply with the penalty payment conditions to avoid recovery, with the possibility of concession in penalty upon final determination.

6. Finally, the appeal was dismissed on all counts except for the concession in penalty as indicated. The judgment concluded that the appellant must adhere to the penalty conditions set by the Tribunal to avoid recovery.