2017 (2) TMI 934 - AT - Customs

Anti Dumping Duty - benefit of N/N. 43/2002-Cus. Dated 19.4.2002 - denial on the ground that the appellant is only entitled to avail the exemption of customs duty in terms of N/N. 56/2003-Cus. dated 1.4.2003 - Held that - The time gap between the two Notifications also indicates that both the Notifications were issued during two different periods to serve their specific purpose. While N/N. 43/2002 dated 19.4.2002 served the purpose of advance licence issued under paragraph 4.1.1 of the EXIM Policy, the N/N. 56/2003-Cus. dated 1.4.2003 dealt with the advance licence issued under para 4.1.7A of the said Policy. When the object of both the paragraphs of the policy is looked into, that brings out difference between the two. Paragraph 4.1.1 deals with normal cases whereas paragraph 4.1.7A is very specific to deal with annual requirement of physical imports. That brought out a clear distinction between the intention of para 4.1.1 and 4.1.7A. Therefore N/N. 56/2003 was not substitute of N/N. 43/2002. The appellant being governed by para 4.1.7A of the EXIM policy, fails to get anti-dumping duty exemption under N/N. 43/2002-Cus. dated 19.4.2002, Accordingly its appeal fails. So far as claim of drawback is concerned, it is left open to the appellant to approach the appropriate authority, if so advised, to claim the drawback. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to exemption from anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. dated 19.4.2002.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 56/2003-Cus. dated 1.4.2003.
3. Redundancy of Notification No. 56/2003-Cus. dated 1.4.2003.
4. Eligibility for drawback benefits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to exemption from anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. dated 19.4.2002:
The appellant argued that as an advance licence holder, it should be exempt from anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. dated 19.4.2002, since the imported raw materials were used in manufacturing goods for export. The appellant referenced paragraph 4.1.7A of the EXIM Policy 2002-2007, claiming that the policy did not differentiate between licences issued under paragraphs 4.1.1 and 4.1.7A. The appellant also cited an office memorandum from the DGFT supporting this view.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 56/2003-Cus. dated 1.4.2003:
The Revenue countered that Notification No. 56/2003-Cus. dated 1.4.2003 specifically governs licences issued under paragraph 4.1.7A of the EXIM Policy, providing customs duty exemptions but not anti-dumping duty exemptions. The Revenue emphasized that both notifications operated independently and were issued to serve different purposes. Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. covered advance licences under paragraph 4.1.1, while Notification No. 56/2003-Cus. applied to licences under paragraph 4.1.7A, which deals with annual requirements for physical imports.

3. Redundancy of Notification No. 56/2003-Cus. dated 1.4.2003:
The appellant contended that Notification No. 56/2003-Cus. was redundant and should be struck down. However, the Revenue argued that the notification had its own objective and was not superfluous. The tribunal agreed with the Revenue, stating that the time gap between the two notifications indicated their distinct purposes and that Notification No. 56/2003-Cus. was not a substitute for Notification No. 43/2002-Cus.

4. Eligibility for drawback benefits:
The appellant requested that if the exemption from anti-dumping duty was not granted, it should be allowed to claim drawback benefits for the exported finished goods. The tribunal left this issue open for the appellant to approach the appropriate authority to claim the drawback, noting that the adjudication proceeding did not cover the drawback claim.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the appellant, governed by paragraph 4.1.7A of the EXIM Policy, was not entitled to anti-dumping duty exemption under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. dated 19.4.2002. The appeal was dismissed. However, the appellant was allowed to pursue the drawback claim with the appropriate authority.