2018 (6) TMI 139 - AT - Customs

Imposition of ADD on Vitamin C and its synonyms - import of Sodium Ascorbate - determination/ classification based on end-use - N/N. 159/2003 Cus dt. 26.10.2003 - case of Revenue is that goods in question were imported when there was Anti Dumping duty in force on Vitamin C and its synonyms imported from China - Held that - The revenue in their appeal has merely relied upon the end use of the imported goods as stated by Dy. CC. However the fact remains that only the end use of the impugned good i,e Sodium Ascorbate does not make it fall under the category of Vitamin C - sodium ascorbate imported from China being neither Vitamin C nor the synonyms, does not fall in the purview of the N/N. 159/2003 - imposition of ADD do not sustain - appeal dismissed - decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 159/2003 - Cus dt. 26.10.2003 regarding Anti Dumping duty on imported goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the revenue against an Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai - I, concerning the import of Sodium Ascorbate USP from China during the period when Anti Dumping duty was applicable on Vitamin C and its synonyms imported from China. The revenue found that no Anti Dumping duty was imposed on the imports as per Notification No. 159/2003 - Cus dt. 26.10.2003. The adjudicating authority considered Sodium Ascorbate to be a form of Vitamin C based on clarification from the Deputy Chief Chemist and Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN-EN) indicating the end use of Sodium Ascorbate as Vitamin C. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent, leading to the revenue's present appeal.

The revenue argued that Sodium Ascorbate is a form of Vitamin C, supported by the clarification from the Deputy Chief Chemist and the HSN-EN mentioning the end use of Sodium Ascorbate as Vitamin C. They contended that the list of synonyms of Vitamin C is not exhaustive and that the Pharmacopeia also treated Ascorbic Acid and Sodium Ascorbate differently. The revenue relied on various sources such as Wikipedia, Princeton's, and Merck Index to support their argument that Sodium Ascorbate falls under the category of Vitamin C, making the Respondent liable for Anti Dumping duty.

On the other hand, the Respondent's counsel reiterated that the impugned order was based on factual and chemical literature analysis. The Appellate Tribunal examined the facts and materials presented, emphasizing that the end use of Sodium Ascorbate alone does not categorize it as Vitamin C. They referred to the differences in chemical properties between Ascorbic Acid and Sodium Ascorbate, including molecular weight, formulae, and pH values. The Tribunal noted that the Indian Pharmacopeia (IP) distinguishes between Ascorbic Acid and Sodium Ascorbate as separate entries, indicating that they are treated differently. Additionally, they highlighted that the HSN Explanatory Notes do not equate Sodium Ascorbate's end use with being synonyms of Vitamin C.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the revenue's appeal. They concurred with the Appellate Commissioner's reasoning that the mere end use of Sodium Ascorbate as Vitamin C does not make it synonymous with Vitamin C. Therefore, Sodium Ascorbate imported from China was deemed not falling under the purview of Notification No. 159/2003 - Cus dt. 26.10.2003, absolving the Respondent from the Anti Dumping duty as claimed by the revenue.