2017 (7) TMI 269 - AT - Customs

Levy of ADD - Soda Ash - whether the appellant is required to discharge Anti dumping duty (ADD) on Soda Ash imported as per Serial No. 21 of N/N. 34/2012-Cus dated 03.07.2012 or as per Serial No. 22 of the same Notification? - Held that - Serial No. 22 of N/N. 34/2012-Cus is for import of higher ADD in respect of goods produced in Kenya but cleared from Kenya another exporter. There is no dispute as to the fact of the case in the hand that exporter is Tata Chemicals, Singapore and Tata Chemicals, Kenya is a manufacturer and has loaded the goods from Kenya. The findings of the first appellate authority on this point are very correct and in consonance of law - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Determining the liability to discharge Anti-dumping duty (ADD) on imported Soda Ash as per specific entries of Notification No.34/2012-Cus.

Analysis:
The appeals questioned whether the appellant should discharge ADD on Soda Ash imported under Serial No.21 or Serial No.22 of Notification No.34/2012-Cus. The appellant, a soda ash manufacturer in India with a facility abroad, imported soda ash from their Kenyan subsidiary. The Designated Authority found dumping and imposed ADD. The appellant contested the assessment, claiming the reduced ADD rate under Serial No.21 applied as Tata Chemicals, Kenya was the exporter. The appellant argued that Tata Chemicals, Singapore was not the exporter based on legal definitions and documents. The first appellate authority upheld the assessment at an enhanced rate.

The debate centered on the correct interpretation of the Notification entries. Entry No.21 applied to soda ash produced and exported by Tata Chemicals, Kenya, while Entry No.22 covered soda ash produced in Kenya and exported by any other entity. The documents indicated Tata Chemicals, Singapore as the exporter, even though Tata Chemicals, Kenya loaded the goods. The first appellate authority correctly determined Tata Chemicals, Singapore as the exporter based on legal definitions and document analysis. The appellate tribunal found the first appellate authority's decision legally sound, citing relevant case law and legal definitions to support the conclusion that Tata Chemicals, Singapore was the exporter. The appeals were deemed meritless, and the impugned orders were upheld.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of ADD rates based on the exporter's identity under specific Notification entries. The decision emphasized legal definitions and document analysis to determine the exporter, ultimately upholding the assessment at the higher ADD rate for soda ash imported by the appellant.