2020 (1) TMI 643 - AT - Customs

Exemption from Anti-Dumping duty - Benefit of N/N. 95/2006-Cus. dt. 08/09/2006 - who is manufacturer of goods - whole case of the Department is that during the course of examination of the goods prior to the clearance of the goods indicated the manufacturer to be M/s.Nanhai Shangyuan Construction Ceramic Co. Ltd. PRC in place of M/s. Foshan Lungo Ceramics Co. Ltd. as appearing in the invoice. HELD THAT - Learned Commissioner(Appeals) has not given any findings on the examination report except saying that as per appellants, the examination report was not given at the time of clearance - Further, it is also not forthcoming as to why in the existence of the examination report, clearance was allowed by the Customs authorities; if the country of origin certificate has been challenged through proper verification procedure and if any action has been initiated against the officers who have permitted clearance despite the examination report - Learned Commissioner(Appeals) has not dealt with this issue and simply relied upon on the copies of the documents produced by the respondents. The issue remanded back to the original authority for a proper appreciation on the facts and circumstances of the case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Import of ceramic tiles, application of anti-dumping duty exemption, discrepancy in manufacturer details, demand of differential duty, validity of show-cause notice, examination report discrepancy, proper verification procedure, remittance of the issue for further consideration.

Analysis:
The case involved the import of ceramic tiles under an exemption from anti-dumping duty. The appellants imported ceramic tiles and claimed benefit under Notification No.95/2006-Cus. However, a discrepancy arose when the examination report indicated a different manufacturer than the one mentioned in the invoice. A show-cause notice was issued demanding a differential duty of ?40,18,214 based on this discrepancy. The Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the original order, stating that the exemption was applicable based on the documents provided by the appellants, despite the examination report discrepancy. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the notification applied only if all parties mentioned were involved, and the show-cause notice was issued in time.

The Tribunal noted that the Department's case relied on the examination report indicating a different manufacturer. However, the Commissioner(Appeals) based their decision on the documents submitted by the appellants, which aligned with the exemption criteria. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner(Appeals) did not address why clearance was allowed despite the examination report discrepancy or if proper verification procedures were followed. To ensure a proper appreciation of the facts, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the original authority for further consideration.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed by way of remand for a more thorough examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discrepancy in manufacturer details and the application of the anti-dumping duty exemption. The judgment was pronounced on 25/11/2019.