2023 (7) TMI 969 - HC - Customs

Entitlement to avail benefit of Anti-Dumping Duty Notification No. 48/2014-ADD dated 11.12.2014 - whether Anti Dumping Duty is leviable on all imported goods ranging from actual thickness of 3.7 mm (4 /- 0.3) to 12.8 (12 /- .8)? - HELD THAT - It clearly appears that not only in the case of Mudit Glassworks Place, but also in respondent s own case in respect of similar imports, the demand of anti-dumping duty was dropped. The tribunal has considered the contentions of the appellant as also of the respondents and referring to such two decisions, has come to a conclusion that the respondents appeal in such circumstances was required to be allowed. The tribunal has observed that the nominal thickness has not been defined in BIS and moreover, when actual thickness is available, in that event, it would not be appropriate to extend the tolerance so as to raise a demand of anti-dumping duty under the notification in question - there is nothing objectionable in the findings as recorded by the tribunal. It is also not in dispute that the earlier similar imports of the respondent were duly verified and were allowed to be cleared by the customs authorities. There cannot be two different standards for similar imports in regard to applicability of the said notification. Thus, no substantial question of law would arise - there is no merit in the appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowing the respondent-assessee's Customs Appeal No. 85400 of 2019.

Issue 1: Entitlement to Anti-Dumping Duty Benefit
The Revenue questioned whether the respondent Importer was entitled to avail the benefit of Anti-Dumping Duty Notification No. 48/2014-ADD dated 11.12.2014, considering the actual thickness of the imported goods.

The respondent imported Float Glass of 3.8 mm thickness from Saudi Arabia, declared in two Bills of Entry. The goods were initially assessed without levy of anti-dumping duty, but on examination, the thickness was found to be between 3.7 mm to 3.86 mm. The Revenue argued that this range fell under the nominal thickness of 4 mm as per Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), making the goods liable for anti-dumping duty under the notification. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued demanding the duty.

Issue 2: Levying Anti-Dumping Duty on Imported Goods
The second issue raised was whether Anti-Dumping Duty should be levied on all imported goods with thickness ranging from 3.7 mm to 12.8 mm, as per the specified limits.

Upon scrutiny of previous import data, it was observed that multiple consignments of Clear Float Glass of 3.8 mm thickness were imported without the duty being imposed. The respondent contested the demand for anti-dumping duty, citing precedents where similar imports had been exempted from the duty based on the actual thickness measurements falling below the nominal 4 mm threshold.

The High Court, after reviewing the tribunal's decision and considering the arguments presented, found that the demand for anti-dumping duty was not justified in this case. It noted that similar imports in the past had been cleared without the duty, and that the nominal thickness had not been clearly defined by BIS. The Court emphasized the importance of consistency in applying the notification across similar imports and dismissed the appeal, ruling that no substantial question of law arose in the matter.