2015 (11) TMI 887 - AT - Customs

Levy of anti dumping duty - clearance of Mulberry Raw Silk and declared the Grade as 4A - Provisional release of goods - Held that - In terms of Notification No.106/2003 dt. 10.7.2003 anti-dumping duty is leviable on raw silk of any Grade 2A and below whereas the appellants imported and declared the goods as Raw Silk Goods Grade 4A. On receipt of the test report, the adjudicating authority after following the principles of natural justice rightly adjudicated the case and personal hearing was attended by the importer himself and he was aware of the test report and only pleaded for leniency. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appellant s contention that that they had not been provided with test report. Further appellant s contention that quarantine certificate issued by Peoples of Republic of China should be accepted is not tenable as it is confirmed by the test report that the goods imported were found to be Grade-2A. Therefore the copy of bonafide of inspection certificate and quarantine certificate relied by the appellant is not valid. The adjudicating authority has rightly held that Anti dumping duty is chargeable and the appellants have misdeclared the goods as Grade 4A instead of 2A. The citations relied by the appellant are not applicable to the issue. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the adjudication order and the impugned order in so far as demand of ADD. As regards appellants pleading for non-imposition of fine and penalty, we find that this Tribunal in a recent decision in the case of Silkone International Vs CC Chennai (2006 (6) TMI 406 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) clearly upheld anti dumping duty, however, set aside the fine and penalty as there is no provision for fine and penalty on ADD by following apex court judgement in the case of CCE Ahmedabad Vs Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. - 2003 (11) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Accordingly, we waive fine and penalty. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Anti-dumping duty on Mulberry Raw Silk imported from China.
2. Grade misdeclaration leading to confiscation, penalty, and fine imposition.
3. Validity of test report and certificates provided by the importer.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the imposition of anti-dumping duty on Mulberry Raw Silk imported from China. The dispute arose when the Customs doubted the grade declared by the importer, leading to a test conducted by the Central Silk Technological Research Institute (CSTRI), Bangalore. The test revealed the imported goods were Grade 2A, attracting anti-dumping duty per Notification 106/03-Cus. The importer requested adjudication, leading to the confiscation of goods with the option of redemption on payment of a fine and duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

2. The appellant argued that they declared the goods as Grade 4A based on supplier certificates and policy circulars. They contended that the test report was not provided despite waiving the show cause notice (SCN). The appellant claimed no intent to evade payment, citing relevant case laws. The respondent maintained that the misdeclaration aimed to avoid anti-dumping duty, with the importer being aware of the test results. The authorities rightfully confiscated the goods and imposed penalties.

3. The Tribunal found that the test report confirmed the goods as Grade 2A, not Grade 4A as declared. The importer's awareness of the test results during the personal hearing indicated knowledge of the misdeclaration. The Tribunal upheld the anti-dumping duty imposition but waived the fine and penalty, citing a previous decision. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the validity of certificates and upheld the impugned order, except for the fine and penalty, partially allowing the appeal.