2023 (7) TMI 968 - AT - Customs

Levy of Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) on second hand goods - used and second hand injunction moulding machine imported / originated from China - value based on a new product originated from China - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that the goods imported are used and second hand goods. The Chartered Engineer who examined the goods apprised the value which has been accepted by the department. The value has been filed on the basis of estimation of the new product. Merely because the value is based on a new product originated from China, it cannot be said that the second hand goods is subject to levy of ADD. The ADD is levied to protect domestic industry. The findings in respect of an investigation for levy of ADD are in regard to manufacture / price of new machinery. It cannot be said that the manufacturers of new machine will suffer material injury due to import of second hand and used machine. The Tribunal in a similar issue in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. TRINITY EXPORTERS 2019 (2) TMI 1370 - CESTAT CHENNAI observed that It is also pertinent to note that the impugned machinery in question had been manufactured in 2007 and it was first exported to South Africa from where it has made its circuitous journey back to this country. The Anti-Dumping Duty Notification which came about in 2009, cannot be back-pedalled to be imposed on goods which have been manufactured and exported in 2007 from a particular country. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The same is sustained. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue in this case revolves around whether Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) is applicable to used and second-hand injection molding machines imported from China.

Summary:
The respondent filed a Bill of Entry for the import of used machinery under the EPCG Scheme. The Chartered Engineer appraised the value of the goods, which was higher than the declared value. The department noticed that the machinery attracted Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) due to its origin from China. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that ADD cannot be levied on old goods and relied on a previous case where ADD was set aside for second-hand machinery. The department appealed this decision.

Department's Argument:
The Department argued that under the Customs Tariff Act, the duty on used and new goods is the same, and there is no differentiation for levying duty. They contended that ADD can be imposed on both old and new goods. The Department relied on the case of Trinity Exporters where ADD was set aside for second-hand machinery and requested the appeal to be allowed.

Respondent's Argument:
The Respondent argued that there is no provision for ADD on second-hand machinery, as upheld in a previous Tribunal order. They emphasized that ADD aims to protect the domestic industry from dumped goods, and the comparison should be between new domestic products and new imported goods. They prayed for the appeal to be dismissed.

Judgment:
The Tribunal considered whether ADD is applicable to used machinery from China. It was noted that the purpose of ADD is to protect the domestic industry from dumped goods. The Tribunal cited a previous case involving Trinity Exports to support the decision that ADD should not be imposed on second-hand machinery. The Tribunal concluded that there are no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, and the appeal was dismissed.

Separate Judgment:
There was no separate judgment delivered by the judges in this case.