2023 (12) TMI 575 - AT - Customs

Levy of Anti Dumping Duty - import of goods described as Extra Clear Glass - goods imported was Extra Clear Glass or Clear Float Glass? - HELD THAT - The appellant, by raising a ground that the duty was paid for Extra Clear Glass, is indirectly trying to justify its classification which cannot be permitted. When there were clearly no doubts in the minds of the Revenue as to what was imported was float glass, then necessary consequences ought to follow, inasmuch as the liability to ADD cannot be overlooked just because the appellant has been magnanimous in remitting more duty. If the said theory is accepted, then the same would affect the classification itself Hence, the theory of the appellant cannot be accepted as the same lacks any merit. Insofar as the Anti-Dumping Duty levy is concerned, the appellant-importer has given a working wherein it has claimed that what was paid as duty by it was more than what was hypothetically worked out by the Revenue, but however, we cannot get into the arithmetics of the same since, the scope of the appeal is limited. There are no merit in the case of the appellant for which reason the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Classification of imported goods as Clear Float Glass and liability for Anti-Dumping Duty.
2. Request for adjudication without Show Cause Notice and personal hearing.

Classification of imported goods as Clear Float Glass and liability for Anti-Dumping Duty:
The appeal was filed by the importer against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. The Bill-of-Entry described the goods as "Extra Clear Glass," but upon manual examination, it was found to be "Clear Float Glass Thickness 12mm, country of origin - China." The Order-in-Original concluded that the imported goods were Clear Float Glass attracting Anti-Dumping Duty, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The importer's appeal was rejected by the first appellate authority, leading to the current appeal. The main issue was whether the impugned order was sustainable.

Request for adjudication without Show Cause Notice and personal hearing:
The importer avoided further investigation/examination by requesting adjudication without a Show Cause Notice and personal hearing. The appellant did not question the examination report of the officers and chose not to participate in the personal hearing. The appellant's letter requested non-issuance of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing, leading the authorities to rely on the examination report. The appellant failed to provide supporting evidence to establish that the imported goods were Extra Clear Glass and not Clear Float Glass. The order of the first appellate authority was upheld due to the lack of supporting documents and expert opinion. The appellant's attempt to justify the classification based on duty paid was rejected as it did not affect the fundamental dispute regarding classification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as it found no merit in the appellant's case. The classification of the goods as Clear Float Glass and the liability for Anti-Dumping Duty were upheld based on the examination report and lack of supporting evidence from the importer. The Tribunal did not delve into the arithmetic of duty payment claims and upheld the decision of the lower authorities.