2008 (9) TMI 248 - AT - Customs

Demand of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on the ground that, on test of a sample drawn from one of the two lots comprising the consignment of Mulberry Raw Silk of Chinese origin was found to be 2A grade as against the declared 5A grade - original authority chose to follow the first test result in respect of the first lot to assess the goods contained in that lot. Hence, the impugned demand - On the request of the appellants, samples were drawn from the first lot afresh and the second lot. On test it was found that both of them were 3A grade. Mulberry Raw Silk of 3A grade does not attract ADD assessee s appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to demand of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) based on test results of Mulberry Raw Silk consignment.

Analysis:
The case involves a challenge to the demand of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on a consignment of Mulberry Raw Silk. The appellant, M/s. Prachi Silks, contested the demand of Rs. 1,44,101/- made in the impugned order. The original authority raised the demand based on the discrepancy in the grade of the silk as per the test results of a sample drawn from one of the two lots in the consignment of Chinese origin. The sample was found to be of 2A grade instead of the declared 5A grade. The Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the ADD demand but vacated a fine and penalty imposed on the appellants. The facts revealed that the consignment was declared as 5A grade supported by a certificate, but subsequent tests showed one lot as 2A grade and both lots as 3A grade. The authorities chose to follow the initial test result for assessing the goods, leading to the impugned demand.

The main contention raised by the appellants was that the test results of the samples drawn a second time for the first lot and the first time for the second lot should have been considered. The appellants argued that the second set of results, which showed both lots as 3A grade, should have been accepted for assessing the entire consignment. On the other hand, the JDR argued that since the second set of results differed from the original test, the ADD demand on the first lot based on the initial test was justified. The lower authorities upheld the ADD demand on the first lot following the initial test results.

Upon consideration of the submissions and facts of the case, the Member (T) found that as samples were drawn only from the first lot, the test result should have been applied to the entire consignment. The Member noted that the second sampling, which showed uniform results for both lots as 3A grade, should have been accepted for assessing the entire consignment. The Member concluded that disregarding the uniform test results of both lots conducted subsequently was incorrect. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of considering uniform test results of all relevant samples drawn from a consignment for assessing Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) demands accurately. The decision emphasizes the need for consistency and fairness in evaluating test results to determine the classification and duty implications of imported goods.