2016 (5) TMI 917 - AT - Customs

Leviability of Anti Dumping Duty and imposition of penalties - Confiscation of imported goods - Appellant classified the goods as parts of injection moulding machine whereas revenue classified it as injection moulding machine - Held that - it is clear that the ADD is imposed only on the plastic processing or injection moulding machines when they are imported from the specified country and subject to other conditions. Looking at the nature of goods imported vide the two Bills of Entry as presented, the nature of goods was parts of the injection moulding machine . The technical aspects of the imported goods have been gone into by the Chartered Engineer who in his certificate dt. 25.2.2010 has categorically concluded that the parts imported in the two shipments will not form complete individual machines. The missing parts such as Control Unit (Computer Controller), Electrical Parts (Control Cabinet) and Drive Unit (Servo Drives & Pumps) are critical parts without which the injection moulding machine cannot be complete and operated. Once it is concluded that what has been imported are nothing but parts of injection moulding machine, the case of the Revenue for imposition of Anti Dumping Duty fails and it is not warranted to examine other pleadings of both sides. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods under Anti Dumping Duty (ADD)
2. Applicability of ADD on parts of injection moulding machine
3. Interpretation of Customs Tariff Act and relevant notifications

Issue 1: Classification of imported goods under Anti Dumping Duty (ADD)

The case involved appeals by the importer against the order of the Commissioner challenging the demand for Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) and penalties imposed. The Revenue also filed appeals related to confiscation of goods and penalties. The appeals were heard together as they arose from a common cause. The dispute centered around the classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act.

Issue 2: Applicability of ADD on parts of injection moulding machine

The importer argued that the ADD was levied on Plastic Processing or Injection Moulding Machine, not on its parts. They contended that the imported goods did not constitute a complete machine and therefore ADD should not be imposed. A Chartered Engineer's opinion supported this claim, stating that the imported parts would not form a complete machine without critical components like Control Unit, Electrical Parts, and Drive Unit.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Customs Tariff Act and relevant notifications

The Revenue argued that the imported goods were "plastic moulding machines" and should be classified as such under the Customs Tariff Act. They contended that the importer split the machine into multiple consignments to avoid paying ADD. However, the Tribunal analyzed the relevant notifications and concluded that ADD is imposed only on complete plastic processing or injection moulding machines. Since the imported goods were determined to be parts of the machine, the imposition of ADD was deemed unwarranted.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the importer, holding that the imported goods were parts of an injection moulding machine and not complete machines subject to ADD. The decision was based on the technical assessment by a Chartered Engineer and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Tariff Act. The appeals by the importer were successful, while those by the Revenue were dismissed.