2008 (9) TMI 370 - AT - Customs

The dispute in the present appeal relates to correct rate of anti-dumping duty in respect of Metcoke imported by the appellant from China. - In terms of Notification No. 69/2000-Cus., dt. 19-5-2000, various rates of anti-dumping duty stand prescribed in respect of import of metcoke from China, depending upon the exporters of the goods. - Revenue s case is that inasmuch as the exporter is not the one as appearing against Sr. No. 3 of the notification, and exporter s name is not specified against any other Sr. No. of said notification, residuary entry against Sr. No. 7 will apply which attracts higher anti-dumping duty. - Inasmuch as the exporter in the present case is not a notified exporter in the notification, the residuary Sr. No. 7 stand rightly applied by the authorities below. - higher anti-dumping duty rate is applicable

Summary

Issues:
Correct rate of anti-dumping duty for imported Metcoke from China - Dispute between Sr. Nos. 3 and 7 of Notification No. 69/2000-Cus.

Analysis:
The dispute in this appeal revolves around determining the correct rate of anti-dumping duty for Metcoke imported from China by the appellant, specifically between Sr. Nos. 3 and 7 of Notification No. 69/2000-Cus. The notification prescribes different duty rates based on the exporters of the goods. The Revenue argues that since the goods were not exported by the company listed under Sr. No. 3 but by a different entity, the higher duty under Sr. No. 7 should apply, resulting in a demand of Rs. 36,00,076 against the appellant.

The appellant's main contention was that the company listed under Sr. No. 3 does not exist, and the actual exporters are a different entity authorized to export the Metcoke. They provided a certificate, press note, and a memo of understanding between Indian and Chinese Governments to support their claim. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected these arguments, stating that since specific companies were partially exempted under Sr. Nos. 1 to 6, the presence of a specific name against Sr. No. 3 in the notification mandates the application of the duty rate listed there. The Commissioner also referenced the website of the alleged company to establish its existence, noting discrepancies in contact details between the listed company and the actual exporter. The Commissioner emphasized that the lower duty rate applies only when the exporter is specifically mentioned in the notification, which was not the case here, leading to the application of the higher duty under Sr. No. 7.

Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, rejecting the appellant's appeal and confirming the demand for the higher anti-dumping duty. The judgment highlights the importance of strict adherence to the specified exporters in the notification for determining the applicable duty rates, emphasizing the need for precise identification and compliance with the terms of such notifications to avoid disputes and potential higher duty liabilities.