2016 (3) TMI 61 - AT - Customs

Demand of Anti-Dumping duty under Sections 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Section 9B ibid and the rules made thereunder- Import of Polished porcelain vitrified floor tiles from Sri Lanka but claimed to be originated in China by revenue- Held that In terms of Rule 8 of Customs Tariff (DOGFTA between Sri Lanka and India) Rules, 2000, when there is an aggregate value addition in the territories of contracting parties of not less than 35% of FOB value of the product under export, then the export is deemed to be from the contracting party. Therefore, the tiles are deemed to be imported from Sri Lanka and not from China as it fulfills the condition of value addition of more than 35%. Hence, not liable to anti-dumping duty. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues involved:
Demand of Anti-Dumping duty on imported "polished porcelain vitrified floor tiles" from Sri Lanka.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the imposition of Anti-Dumping duty on "polished porcelain vitrified floor tiles" imported by the respondent from Sri Lanka. The Revenue authorities contended that the tiles actually originated in China and not in Sri Lanka, making them subject to anti-dumping duty. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand raised by the show-cause notice. However, the first appellate authority set aside the decision based on a previous CESTAT order and a letter from the Sri Lankan Customs authorities. The CESTAT order highlighted that there was a significant value addition in Sri Lanka, making the goods eligible for preferential treatment under the Customs Tariff Rules. The appellate authority concluded that the imposition of Anti-Dumping duty was unjustified and ruled in favor of the respondent, setting aside the demand.

The Revenue, represented by the learned A.R., argued that the facts of the case differed from those considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and requested a reconsideration of the issue. However, upon review, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's submission. The Tribunal examined the letter from the Sri Lankan Customs authorities and noted that the first appellate authority had correctly relied on a previous CESTAT order that had already addressed the same issue. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellate authority's decision was well-reasoned, legally sound, and in line with judicial precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the correctness of the appellate authority's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision to set aside the demand for Anti-Dumping duty on the imported tiles, as they were deemed to have originated from Sri Lanka based on the substantial value addition in the exporting country. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering value addition in determining the origin of goods for the application of customs duties, emphasizing compliance with relevant Customs Tariff Rules and judicial precedents.