2004 (10) TMI 125 - AT - Customs

Import date of Import - Order - Appellate Tribunal - Valuation (Customs) - Anti-dumping duty

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported goods

Analysis:
1. The appeal questioned whether anti-dumping duty is applicable to goods imported by M/s. Sneh Enterprises. The advocate argued that since the goods were imported before the duty imposition, they should not be liable for the duty. He cited the Tribunal's decision in a previous case to support his argument. The advocate also contended that the provisions of the Customs Act regarding the determination of duty rates do not apply to anti-dumping duty. He further argued that the imported batteries were not industrial batteries and that countervailing duty should not be included in the assessable value for anti-dumping duty purposes, referring to a previous tribunal decision.

2. The opposing argument presented by the S.D.R. stated that anti-dumping duty should be determined at the time of importation, as per Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act. The S.D.R. referenced Supreme Court judgments to support the position that the taxable event occurs when goods cross the Customs barriers. The S.D.R. also contended that the question of whether the batteries were industrial type was not raised earlier and cannot be raised at the appellate stage. The S.D.R. argued that Section 15 of the Customs Act applies to imported goods, supporting the argument with a tribunal decision.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and legal provisions. It noted that importation is completed when goods cross the Customs barriers, and anti-dumping duty is chargeable upon importation. The Tribunal disagreed with the advocate's reliance on a specific tribunal decision, stating it was not applicable in light of Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal agreed with the S.D.R. that the question of the batteries being industrial type cannot be raised at the appellate stage. The Tribunal remanded the matter to recompute the duty payable by the appellants, excluding Additional Customs Duty and Special Additional Duty from the assessable value for anti-dumping duty purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the anti-dumping duty is applicable to the imported goods, rejecting the arguments raised by the advocate and upholding the position presented by the S.D.R. The Tribunal emphasized the completion of importation at the Customs barriers and directed a reevaluation of the duty payable by the appellants, excluding certain additional duties from the assessable value.