2017 (12) TMI 291 - AT - Customs

Levy of ADD - N/N. 73/2003-Cus dated 01/05/2003 as amended by N/N. 95/2006-Cus dated 08/09/2006. Subsequent to the above notification, a fresh N/N. 95/2006-Cus dated 08/09/2006 prescribed provisional levy till new shiper review was completed - Held that - it is necessary to ascertain the manufacturer, the exporter and the channelising agency in terms of above amendment to decide whether there shall be levy of anti-dumping duty - Record reveals that examination report categorically state that subject goods were manufactured by M/s Foshan Lungo Ceramics Co. Ltd. whereas the claim of respondent was M/s Heyuan Wanfeng Ceramics Co. Ltd.,for which the matter needs scrutiny. Appeal is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the genesis of the levy on the subject goods ascertaining the identity of exporter, producer and channelizing agency exported the subject goods from the subject country - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of anti-dumping duty on imported goods.
2. Interpretation of relevant notifications regarding anti-dumping duty.
3. Identification of manufacturer, exporter, and channelizing agency for levy determination.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the levy of anti-dumping duty on imported goods. The appellant argued that there was no levy of anti-dumping duty prescribed for goods manufactured by one company and exported by another. The notification in question, No. 95/2006-Cus dated 08/09/2006, prescribed provisional levy until a new shipper review was completed. The designated authority recommended provisional assessment until the review was finalized. Subsequently, it was observed that the goods were above their normal value, leading to the amendment of the original notification. The final findings concluded that no anti-dumping duty should be imposed on the subject goods. The Central Government made further amendments to the notification, specifying that no anti-dumping duty shall be imposed on the imports of the subject goods produced by a specific manufacturer and exported through a particular channelizing agency.

Regarding the interpretation of relevant notifications, the judgment delves into the details of the amendments made to the original notification regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duty. It highlights the process of review, provisional assessment, and the final findings that led to the decision of not imposing anti-dumping duty on the subject goods. The judgment emphasizes the importance of correctly identifying the manufacturer, exporter, and channelizing agency to determine the applicability of anti-dumping duty as per the amended notification.

The final issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the identification of the manufacturer, exporter, and channelizing agency for determining the levy of anti-dumping duty. The court emphasized the need for a thorough examination to ascertain the identity of the entities involved in the production and export of the goods in question. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further scrutiny to determine the genesis of the levy on the subject goods and to establish the accurate details of the manufacturer, exporter, and channelizing agency. The authority was instructed to record pleadings and evidence before passing an appropriate order based on the findings.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues related to the levy of anti-dumping duty, interpretation of relevant notifications, and the importance of correctly identifying the entities involved in the production and export of goods for determining the applicability of anti-dumping duty.