2017 (4) TMI 679 - AT - Customs

Imposition of ADD - PVC paste resin - Sunset review - the case of appellant is that the final order did not examine non-compliance of the original remand directions of the Tribunal by the DA - Held that - the appellant could not bring out any error apparent on record in the said final order. The grievance of the appellant is that the customs tariff classification was restricted to four digit and thereby the scope of Anti-Dumping levy was expanded when compared to the original investigation. These aspects have been examined in detail by the DA and has been taken note of in the final order by the Tribunal. The Customs Notification dated 03.07.2013 mentions four digit classification and the description of the product alongwith an Explanation listing out the exclusion of certain products from the purview of Anti-Dumping duty. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the Final Order of the Anti-Dumping Bench of the Tribunal regarding Customs Notification No. 15/2013 and Final Findings dated 04.04.2013.

Analysis:
The appellant, an Association of importers and consumers of PVC paste resin, filed an Anti-Dumping Appeal against the Final Findings and Customs Notification issued by the Designated Authority (DA) and Ministry of Finance. The issue arose in 2004 when the DA recommended Anti-Dumping duty on imported PVC paste resin. After a Sunset Review in 2010, the duty was extended. The matter was challenged before the Tribunal, resulting in a remand to the DA for a fresh decision. The DA issued Final Findings in 2013, which were again challenged before the Tribunal, leading to the Final Order dated 12.09.2016.

The appellant contended that the Customs Notification violated the Tribunal's order by not following the specific classification of the product for Anti-Dumping duty. They argued that there was no causal link between the import of goods and injury to the domestic industry. The appellant sought rectification of the final order based on these grounds.

The Domestic Industry and DA opposed the application, stating that the final order had examined the issues thoroughly. They argued that the Tribunal could not reevaluate evidence or legal arguments beyond the scope of the Customs Act. They cited Supreme Court decisions to support their stance.

Upon reviewing the appeal records and final order, the Tribunal found no error apparent on record. The classification and scope of Anti-Dumping duty were detailed in the final order, addressing the appellant's concerns. The Tribunal noted that the Customs Notification specified the product and excluded certain items, eliminating ambiguity. The DA's findings on injury margin and AD duty quantification were also upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, emphasizing that seeking a review through such an application was not permissible. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that rectification should address obvious and patent mistakes, which was not the case here. The application was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Final Order and rejected the appellant's request for rectification, emphasizing the thorough examination of issues in the original judgment.