2022 (10) TMI 591 - SCH - Customs

Levy of Anti-dumping duty - valuation - acrylic fibre imported from United States of America, Thailand, and South Korea - applicability of Notification dated 24-10-1997 - HELD THAT - The appellants are liable to pay anti-dumping duty of the imported goods in terms of Notification No. 72/2001-CX., dated 12-2-2001 at the rate of US 180 per kg whereas they had originally paid duty at the rate of US 9.73 per kg in terms of Notification No. 81/97, dated 24-10-1997 - While calculating the CVD, the element of anti-dumping duty is to be excluded for arriving at the assessable value - since the goods had been found to be of Thai origin and the department earlier enhanced the assessable value by treating the same as of Taiwan origin, the declared value of the goods by the appellants is to be accepted which was US 0.80 per kg. (iv) the penalty imposed on the appellants is not to exceed 25% of the re-calculated duty amount. No case to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal is therefore made out - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of anti-dumping duty on acrylic fibre imported from the United States, Thailand, and South Korea. Interpretation of government notification on anti-dumping duty. Re-computation of duty, interest, and penalty by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court dealt with a dispute regarding the levy of anti-dumping duty on acrylic fibre imported from the United States, Thailand, and South Korea. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had initially set aside the anti-dumping duty and penalty confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, remanding the matter for re-computation. The first CESTAT order dated 10-9-2002 attained finality as it was not challenged by the Appellant-Revenue. Despite arguments raised by the Appellant, the Court held that the question of applying anti-dumping duty on the Respondent cannot be re-opened due to the finality of the first order (2002 (146) E.L.T. 610 (Tri. - Del.)).

Upon remand, the Adjudicating Authority reconfirmed the duty payable and penalty, leading to a second appeal before CESTAT. The CESTAT's second order dated 16-2-2005 remanded the case for re-quantification of duty, interest, and penalty. The order specified various factors to consider, such as the correct duty rate, exclusion of anti-dumping duty while calculating CVD, acceptance of declared value, and a cap on penalty at 25% of the re-calculated duty amount. The Court found this order to be in line with the first CESTAT order, causing no prejudice to the Appellant-Revenue.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal and dismissed the Civil Appeal accordingly. The judgment upheld the re-computation of duty and penalty by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the finality of the initial CESTAT order and the conformity of subsequent decisions.