2004 (3) TMI 133 - AT - Customs

Confiscation and penalty - Anti-dumping duty - HELD THAT - The Anti-dumping duty is imposed under the provisions of Section 9A of the Customs Act. It has been held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, 2001 (3) TMI 126 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI that Anti-Dumping duty levied under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act can not be considered as duty realised under Customs Act, 1962. Special provisions have been made under Section 9A for the imposition of duty known as Anti-Dumping Duty. The Larger Bench came to the conclusion in that case that the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act do not apply to refund of anti-dumping duty. The learned Advocate has referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. D.C.W. Ltd. v. CC 2002 (1) TMI 228 - CEGAT, CHENNAI , in which the Tribunal, following the decision of the Larger Bench in Caprihans case, had allowed the Appeal and the Appeal filed by Revenue has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, after condoning the delay in Civil Appeal 2003 (1) TMI 743 - SC ORDER . Accordingly the provisions of Sections 111, 112 and 114A of the Customs Act were not applicable when the show cause notice dated 5-11-99 was issued to the Appellants. Following the decision in Pioneer Silk Mills 1991 (9) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI , we hold that provisions relating to confiscation and Penalties contained in Customs Act are not applicable in respect of Anti-dumping duty and accordingly we set aside the confiscation and consequential redemption fine and penalties imposed on both the Appellants. Both the Appeals stand disposed of in the above manner.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming Anti-dumping duty, confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties u/s 114A and 112(a) of Customs Act.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Country of Origin Dispute:
The Appellants imported goods from Taiwan but investigation revealed goods were of Thailand origin due to switch bills of lading. Appellants argued they relied on Certificate of Origin from Taiwan Chamber of Commerce, denying misdeclaration or collusion with exporter.

2. Legal Arguments by Appellants:
Appellants contended no financial gain from alleged misdeclaration, citing provisions of Customs Act Sections 111(m), 28, 114A, and 28AB not applicable. They argued against the application of penalties.

3. Anti-dumping Duty Levy:
Revenue argued Appellants liable to pay anti-dumping duty on goods of Thailand origin, citing Customs Tariff Act provisions and Notification imposing duty. They emphasized the duty liability remains even without specific recovery provisions.

4. Judicial Interpretation:
The Tribunal upheld the duty payment by Appellants, stating once legally payable duty is paid, recovery provisions' absence is irrelevant. The judgment clarified the legal standing of anti-dumping duty under Customs Act provisions.

5. Applicability of Customs Act Provisions:
The Tribunal referenced precedents to establish that provisions of Sections 111, 112, and 114A of the Customs Act do not apply to anti-dumping duty matters. The judgment highlighted the specific legal framework governing anti-dumping duties.

6. Confiscation and Penalties:
Following a legal precedent, the Tribunal ruled that provisions related to confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act are not applicable to anti-dumping duty cases. As a result, the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on the Appellants were set aside.

7. Final Disposition:
The Tribunal concluded by disposing of both Appeals in favor of the Appellants, based on the legal interpretation of anti-dumping duty provisions and the inapplicability of certain Customs Act penalties in such cases.