9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1257 - AT - CustomsAnti-Dumping Duty - vitamin C - N/N. 159/2003-Cus - Held that - The levy of antidumping duty is undoubtedly applicable to vitamin C . The chemical name of vitamin C is ascorbic acid . The goods imported by the appellant are not of that nomenclature. There is no evidence of any test report that indicates the imported goods to be vitamin C or ascorbic acid - there is no justification for applicability of anti-dumping duty levied on a particular product to other goods that may contain the said goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Applicability of anti-dumping duty on 'sodium ascorbate' imported by the appellant from China under notification no. 159/2003-Cus. Analysis: The appeal pertains to the applicability of anti-dumping duty on 'sodium ascorbate' imported by the appellant from China against five bills of entry between January 2007 and April 2007. The demand upheld by the first appellate authority amounts to &8377; 41,24,347. The appellant argues that the definitive antidumping duty is only applicable to imports of 'vitamin C' from China. However, it is contended that the imported goods are not 'vitamin C' and thus fall outside the scope of the notification for levy of the duty. The Tribunal considered the submissions and evidence presented. The chemical name of 'vitamin C' is 'ascorbic acid', and it is established that the goods imported by the appellant do not match this nomenclature. There is a lack of evidence, such as test reports, to prove that the imported goods are indeed 'vitamin C' or 'ascorbic acid'. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that there is no basis for applying the anti-dumping duty meant for a specific product to other goods that may contain the said product. Therefore, the demand for anti-dumping duty on the imported 'sodium ascorbate' is deemed unjustified under the law and is set aside. In conclusion, the Tribunal allows the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision was pronounced in the Open Court on 20/02/2018.
|
