2024 (3) TMI 872 - AT - Customs

Re-assessment of imported goods - 30 MT of PVC Resin SG 5 (Suspension Grade) - it appeared that the goods were liable to anti-dumping duty @ USD 147.96 PMT in terms of Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 32/2 -Customs (ADD) dated 10.08.2019 instead of Sl. No. 1 of the said notification prescribed anti-dumping duty @ USD 61.14 PMT, as claimed by the appellant - HELD THAT - The invoices and packing list, as well as Bill of Lading clearly indicate that the manufacture is M/s. Xinjiang Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Co. Ltd. The certificate at page 41 also indicates that manufacturing is by M/s. Xinjiang Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Co. Ltd. Company, a group company of M/s. Xinjiang Zhongtai Chemical Co. Ltd. It is thus clear from the evidence that the Alkali Company (XSCCL) was actually the manufacturer and M/s. Zhonglai Chemical Co. Ltd.(XZCCL) had only exported goods clearly mentioning that Alkali Company was the manufacturer and also that their company was exporter. Even the certificate of origin of Chinese authority mentions that exporter was M/s. Zhonglai Chemical Co. Ltd., and the name of manufacturer was M/s. Xinjiang Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Co. Ltd and this has remained an unrebutted piece of evidence by an independent authority. Further learned advocate has provided para 33 of the final findings of Notification of Anti Dumping Authorities, which mentions Alkali Co., as producer and Chemical Co., as exporter. The Order-In-Appeal is not maintainable and the Bill of Entry was correctly filed in so far as claim of ADD at lower rate was concerned - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the case are the correct imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported goods and the determination of the actual manufacturer of the goods based on documentary evidence provided by the appellant.

Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of imported goods, claiming a specific anti-dumping duty rate. However, the authorities proposed to reject the claim and levy a higher anti-dumping duty due to a perceived misdeclaration regarding the manufacturer of the goods. The Additional Commissioner ordered the reassessment of the goods under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, with the imposition of a higher anti-dumping duty rate, confiscation of the goods, and a penalty on the importer. The appellants challenged this order, arguing that the higher duty was unjustified as the goods were indeed produced by the claimed manufacturer, Xinjiang Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Co. Ltd.

Manufacturer Determination Based on Evidence:
During the hearing, the appellants presented various documents, including invoices, packing lists, certificates of origin, and a certificate from the supplier confirming the manufacturing unit. The appellant contended that these documents unequivocally proved that the goods were manufactured by Xinjiang Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Co. Ltd. The department's case relied on the bags containing the goods, which had a different manufacturer's name, leading to the imposition of a higher anti-dumping duty rate. However, the appellate tribunal examined the evidence provided by the appellant, including certificates of analysis and origin, which clearly indicated Xinjiang Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Co. Ltd. as the manufacturer. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim was supported by overwhelming evidence, and the order imposing the higher duty was baseless. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the Bill of Entry was correctly filed regarding the anti-dumping duty rate.

This judgment highlights the importance of documentary evidence in determining the correct imposition of duties on imported goods and the need for thorough examination of all relevant documents to establish the actual manufacturer.