2009 (6) TMI 363 - AT - Customs

Levy of anti-dumping duty on Acrylic tow - Anti-dumping duty is leviable on import of acrylic fibre falling under sub-heading No. 5501.30 or 5503.30 in terms of Notification No. 133/2001-Customs dated 31-12-2001. The original authority held that the acrylic tow imported by the respondent has to be considered as acrylic fibre and therefore the same attracts anti-dumping duty in terms of Notification No. 133/2001-Cus. - Held that the levy cannot be based on implication. . The levy is clearly on acrylic fibre. - Customs Tariff 5501 at 4 digit level refers to acrylic tow and 5503 refers to acrylic fibre. Therefore there is conscious distinction between the acrylic tow and acrylic fibre. Notwithstanding the fact that sub-headings 5501.30 and 5503.30 have been mentioned in the notification the levy is only on import of acrylic fibre. It cannot be extended to acrylic tow by any implications. - Contention of the appellant is quite correct and convincing in as much as the acrylic fibre and acrylic two are two different goods and the anti-dumping duty is chargeable only on acrylic fibre and not on acrylic tow .

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi heard an appeal by the Department against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the import of bright dyed 3.3 DTEX Acrylic Tow. The issue revolved around whether the imported acrylic tow should attract anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 133/2001-Customs. The original authority held that the acrylic tow should attract the duty, while the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the duty was chargeable only on acrylic fibre, not acrylic tow. The Department argued that acrylic tow and acrylic fibre were essentially the same, differing only in length, and therefore should be treated as such. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that there was Fameable the) theingiveingingiveing suchable agoing for thating suchable the) theau detailed theau and) theous a- theing suchative aph theinging acore).es).5 a records ofing aed a the,es) theaule suchative aing aed thating theau) theauled arguments ofing such theauive the,ens).esers,eses) theable'sp sals judgment going and pering such theau) theau and).esers).ese) theable:).ing an- hiss a his work. The Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal, concurring with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the levy of anti-dumping duty was only on acrylic fibre, not acrylic tow, based on a conscious distinction between the two items. The Tribunal found no valid grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, thus upholding the appeal rejection.