9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Misdeclaration of weight by importers to evade anti-dumping duty. 2. Classification of imported goods as Hard Ring Ferrite Magnets. 3. Applicability of Notification No. 103/99 for anti-dumping duty. 4. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Imposition of penalty on importers and traders. Issue 1: Misdeclaration of weight The case involved importers misdeclaring the weight of Ferrite Magnets to evade anti-dumping duty. The show cause notice alleged misdeclaration in the weight of imported goods, leading to duty enhancement proposals, change in the country of origin, and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the notice, dropping the proceedings based on a report stating the goods were not magnets but articles intended to become magnets after magnetization. The Revenue appealed this decision. Issue 2: Classification of imported goods The imports of Hard Ring Ferrite Magnets were contested, with the Revenue claiming misdeclaration of weight to evade anti-dumping duty. The Commissioner confirmed the charges, stating the goods were of Chinese origin and misdeclared to avoid duty. The appeal questioned whether the imported goods were indeed Hard Ring Ferrite Magnets and whether they attracted anti-dumping duty based on weight. Issue 3: Applicability of Notification No. 103/99 The Tribunal analyzed the technical aspects of Ceramic magnet materials and the manufacturing process of Ferrite magnets to determine the classification of the imported goods. It was argued that the goods were not magnetized and, therefore, did not qualify as Hard Ring Ferrite Magnets attracting anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 103/99. The Tribunal noted the rescission of the notification and concluded that prior to its amendment, only magnets were subject to anti-dumping duty. Issue 4: Confiscation under Section 111(m) The Revenue contended that even if anti-dumping duty provisions did not apply, the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act due to weight misdeclaration and incorrect country of origin declaration. However, the Tribunal found that the appeal memorandum did not independently challenge the confiscation grounds, and misdeclaration was relevant only in the context of anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 103/99. Issue 5: Imposition of penalty The Tribunal held that since the provisions of Notification No. 103/99 were not applicable, the goods were not liable for confiscation, and the penalties imposed were not sustainable. The Revenue's appeal was rejected, upholding the Commissioner's order, while the appeals of the Importer and Trader were allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
|
