2016 (7) TMI 885 - HC - Customs

Levy of anti dumping duty - Import of PVC Resin Suspension Grade S65D from Taiwan - Country of Exports / origin - it was submitted that there is no requirement that the goods should be physically exported from the European Union and that the country of export having been mentioned in Serial No.5 in the table found in the Notification No.27/2014 has to be interpreted to mean that the country of supplier/exporter in the case is United Kingdom. Held that - Inspite of this clarification having been issued, the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice and he brought to the notice of the authority the clarification issued, yet the authority while passing the order in original proposed to confirm the proposal in the show cause notice on the ground that the Notification No.27/2014 was not amended. The authority was well justified in taking such a stand in the order-in-original because the communication of the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties dated 11.09.2014 did not fructify into a notification by the Government of India. However, now the things stand cleared in the light of the notification dated 22.01.2016 which is a corrigendum to the notification dated 13.06.2014 which has partially modified certain entries and in particular, the Country of exports Thus, the question of insisting that the goods had to be physically shipped from the country of export is not necessary as has been clarified by the corrigendum dated 22.01.2016. In the light of the above, the impugned orders in original calls for interference - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assesssee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders dated 30.10.2015 regarding anti-dumping duty on imported goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner imported goods and was later issued a show cause notice for not paying anti-dumping duty. The petitioner argued that physical export from the European Union was not necessary, citing a clarification from the designated authority. Despite this, the original order confirmed the duty proposal. The court considered a corrigendum issued by the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, which modified the table in the notification. This corrigendum clarified that physical export from the country of export was not mandatory, aligning with the petitioner's argument.

The Customs authorities in Tuticorin and Chennai raised objections regarding the country of export for duty margin allocation. The Directorate General issued a clarification stating that goods did not need to be physically shipped from the country of export, emphasizing the importance of commercial invoices. Despite this clarification, the petitioner received a show cause notice, leading to the original order. The court acknowledged that the clarification did not become a government notification, but the subsequent corrigendum dated 22.01.2016 provided further clarity.

The corrigendum partially modified certain entries, specifically the 'Country of exports' section. It confirmed that physical shipment from the country of export was not required. The court, based on this corrigendum, allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions without costs. The judgment clarified the unnecessary insistence on physical shipment from the country of export and highlighted the significance of the corrigendum in resolving the issue at hand.