2018 (5) TMI 1145 - AT - Customs

Exemption from anti-dumping duty - N/N. 72/2005-Cus dated 22.7.2005 and N/N. 73/2003-Cus dated 1.5.2003 - import of Glazed/Polished Procelain tiles - denial of exemption on the ground that he goods were not manufactured by M/s Southern Building Materials and Sanitary Co. Ltd. - Held that - on going through the statement of Shri K.M. Alexender, Sr. Manager of Gera Development Pvt. Ltd., the assessee in the present case, it is found that Shri Alexender only stated the facts. However, he could not confirm that the goods were not manufactured by M/s Southern Building Materials and Sanitary Co. Ltd. Therefore, from the statement, it cannot be said that the assessee has accepted the allegation of the Revenue. Whether the goods were manufactured by M/s Southern Building Materials and Sanitary Co. Ltd.? - Held that - the goods exported by M/s New Zhong Yuan Ceramics Import & Export Co. Ltd. were manufactured by M/s Southern Building Materials and Sanitary Co. Ltd. - Revenue has heavily relied upon the verification of internet, from which it can only be known that brand name embossed on the goods imported are belonging to XinZhong Yuan Ceramics Co. Ltd. i.e. XNY. - Without any detailed investigation, merely on assumption basis, the Revenue came to the conclusion that the goods were not manufactured by M/s Southern Building Materials and Sanitary Co. Ltd. - there is no substance in the allegation of the Revenue. Confiscation and redemption fine set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged violation of conditions for exemption of anti-dumping duty on imported tiles.
2. Dispute over the manufacturer of the imported tiles.
3. Reliance on internet verification for determining the manufacturer.
4. Admissibility of evidence and statements in the case.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Alleged violation of conditions for exemption of anti-dumping duty
The Department contended that the imported tiles were subject to anti-dumping duty exemption under specific conditions, including being manufactured by a particular company. The Revenue alleged that the brand names on the tiles did not match the specified manufacturer, leading to the violation of exemption conditions.

Issue 2: Dispute over the manufacturer of the imported tiles
The appellant argued that despite the brand name discrepancy, the goods were indeed manufactured by the specified company. The appellant provided various documents, including certificates and import papers, indicating that the tiles were manufactured by the designated company as required by the exemption conditions.

Issue 3: Reliance on internet verification for determining the manufacturer
The Revenue heavily relied on internet verification to establish that the brand names on the imported tiles did not align with the specified manufacturer. However, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not conduct a thorough investigation beyond the internet verification to confirm the actual manufacturer of the goods.

Issue 4: Admissibility of evidence and statements
The Tribunal analyzed the statements provided by both parties, particularly focusing on the statement of a senior manager from the appellant company. The Tribunal concluded that the statement did not confirm the non-involvement of the specified manufacturer in the production of the tiles. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence over assumptions or internet verification.

In the final decision, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the evidence presented regarding the actual manufacturer of the imported tiles. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of substantial evidence from the Revenue to prove that the goods were not manufactured by the specified company, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal and providing relief to the appellant in accordance with the law.