2019 (4) TMI 185 - AT - Customs

Imposition of ADD - Import of PVC Flex Films from China - N/N. 79/2010-Cus. - appellant contended that the self adhesive vinyl imported by it is a different product than the PVC Flex Film and as such not covered under the purview of anti-dumping duty - Held that - The goods imported by the appellant namely, self adhesive vinyl was never subjected to payment of anti-dumping duty inasmuch as the said product was different from the PVC Flex Films, on which anti-dumping duty was imposed. The said fact is evident from the Notification dated 25.08.2011, which excludes self-adhesive vinyl for consideration of PVC Flex Film for the purpose of levy of anti-dumping duty - the subject goods imported by the appellant will not be subjected to levy of anti-dumping duty. Further, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not extended the benefit of notification dated 25.08.2011 on the ground that no sample of the disputed goods was drawn for test and the same had not cleared on payment of anti-dumping duty. It is an admitted fact on record that classification of the subject goods has never been questioned or objected to by the Customs Officers at the time of assessment. Thus, there was no requirement of drawal of any samples for the purpose of test, to ascertain the type of goods imported by the appellant - Since the Central Government vide Notification dated 25.08.2011 had specifically clarified that the said Notification shall not applicable to self-adhesive vinyl, there are no justifiable reason to agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to imposition of anti-dumping duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of anti-dumping duty on Self Adhesive Vinyl imported by the appellant.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai II, regarding the levy of anti-dumping duty on Self Adhesive Vinyl imported by the appellant. The appellant contended that the Self Adhesive Vinyl imported by them was different from PVC Flex Film and thus not covered under the purview of anti-dumping duty. The Customs authorities, however, disagreed with this contention, leading to the appellant paying the duty under protest. The designated authority had recommended anti-dumping duty on PVC Flex Films, but it was clarified in a notification that Self-Adhesive Vinyl was excluded from the levy of anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal observed that the goods imported by the appellant, namely Self Adhesive Vinyl, were never subjected to anti-dumping duty as they were different from PVC Flex Films. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the notification excluding Self-Adhesive Vinyl from anti-dumping duty, citing reasons such as the absence of sample testing, even though the classification of the goods was not in question during assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants.

This judgment primarily revolved around the interpretation of notifications related to the imposition of anti-dumping duty on specific goods. The Tribunal analyzed the notifications issued by the Central Government regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duty on PVC Flex Films and the subsequent clarification excluding Self-Adhesive Vinyl from such duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods imported by the appellant were distinct from those subject to anti-dumping duty, as clearly indicated in the notifications. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Customs Officers did not raise any objections to the classification of the goods during assessment, eliminating the need for sample testing. By considering the specific language and intent of the notifications, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant should not be subjected to the levy of anti-dumping duty on the Self Adhesive Vinyl imported by them.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the correct interpretation and application of notifications related to anti-dumping duty on specific goods. By analyzing the notifications and considering the distinct nature of the goods imported by the appellant, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order that imposed anti-dumping duty. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to the specific provisions and clarifications outlined in the notifications to determine the applicability of anti-dumping duty, ensuring a fair and accurate assessment of customs duties on imported goods.