2024 (10) TMI 158 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Aluminum PS Printing Plates - to be classified under CTH 84425020 or under CTH 3701? - N/N. 51/2012 dated 03.12.2012. Whether the goods imported by the respondent-importer have rightly been reported as CTCP printing plates attracting antidumping duty in terms of Notification No. 51/2012 dated 03.12.2012 as is the case of department or the goods are the aluminum PS printing plates to which there is no anti-dumping duty liability as is the case of the respondent? - HELD THAT - It is coming from the show cause notice itself that another notification no. 25/2014-Cus.(ADD) dated 09.06.2014 imposes anti-dumping duty on pre sensitized aluminium plates at the rate of .22 USD per kg. The Notification No. 25/2014 dated 09.02.2014 is perused which has been issued pursuant to the review in matter of continuation of anti- dumping duty on imports of pre-sensitized positive offset aluminum plates of thickness ranging from 1.5 mm to .40 mm falling under Chapter 37, 76 or 84. Pursuant to the findings of said review, the notification 25/2014 had extended anti-dumping duty on PS aluminum plates originating in or exported from China PR at the rate of .22 per USD per kg for a period of 5 years. It becomes clear that though the plates imported by the respondent are not proved to be CTCP aluminum plates but these admittedly are pre sensitized aluminum plates against which also there is an imposition of anti dumping duty w.e.f. 10.03.2014 till 09.03.2019. The impugned Bill of Entry is of February, 2015. Hence it stands clear that the respondentimporter is liable to pay anti-dumping duty at the rate of .22 USD per kg. Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the said notification while setting aside the order of imposition of ADD by the original adjudicating authority. Though the quantum confirmed by original authority has to be recomputed at the .22 USD instead of .40 USD per kg. It is apparent from the documents placed on record by the department in the form of test memos and test reports that the goods imported through Bill of Entry No. 8422708 dated 25.02.2015, the country of origin is China. The sample thereof had thickness of 0.27 mm. It stands clear that both these parameters also confirm the criteria specifed under Notification No. 25/2014 dated 09.06.2014. As such it is held that the entire demand of anti dumping duty on the impugned goods has wrongly been set aside. The anti dumping duty at the rate as prescribed in Notification No. 25/2014 is still liable to be recovered from the respondentimporter. Whether the goods imported are liable to be classified under CTH 3701 as alleged by department instead of CTH 84425020 as declared by the respondent the respondent is liable to pay additional BCD? - HELD THAT - While going through the Chapter notes and explanatory notes of 8442 no doubt 84425020 include plates, cylinders and other printing components prepared for printing purposes but there has been an exclusion clause to this section note according to which the sensitized plates (consisting of metal or plastics, coated with a sensitized photographic emulsion or of a sheet of photo sensitive plastic, whether or not affixed to a support of metal of other material) are excluded. There is no denial to the fact that the imported aluminum plates are sensitized plates. Hence, the plates are excluded from Chapter 8442. Otherwise also, as already observed above 8442 mainly talks about equipments and machines for preparation of printing plates whereas CTH 3701 talks specifically about photographic printing plates. Hence the goods in question are more precisely and specifically classifiable under CTH. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case LML LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2010 (9) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT has held that the safe guide to resolve dispute on tariff classification is internationally accepted nomenclature emerging from Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN). HSN explanatory notes are the dependable guide for interpretation of Customs Act - the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while holding that goods imported fall under CTH 8442 based whereupon the demand of differential amount of basis customs duty is held to have been wrongly been set aside. The findings of Commissioner (Appeals) are hereby set aside. The anti dumping duty at the rate .22 USD per kg is ordered to be recovered from the respondent-importer. In addition the differential BCD amounting to Rs. 1,43,233/- along with the interest is also held to be the respondent-importer s liability - the original order imposing the penalty of Rs. 2.40 lakhs under Section 112(a) and the same amount of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act as was imposed by the original adjudicating authorities, restored - the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby set aside and the department s appeal stands allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods.
2. Imposition of anti-dumping duty.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1: Classification of Imported Goods
The primary contention revolves around whether the imported goods are correctly classified as CTCP printing plates or as pre-sensitized (PS) aluminum plates. The department argued that the goods were CTCP plates, which attract anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 51/2012. The respondent-importer classified them under CTH 84425020 as PS aluminum plates, which do not attract such duty.

To determine the correct classification, samples were tested by multiple laboratories. The initial test by the Department of Printing Technology, Pusa, confirmed the goods as CTCP plates, but this report was later withdrawn due to outsourced testing. The Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) also refused testing due to inadequate infrastructure. Subsequently, a private lab, M/s. Don Bosco Technical Institute, confirmed the goods as CTCP plates. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found this report unreliable due to outsourced testing and lack of proper infrastructure.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, stating there was no conclusive evidence to prove the goods were CTCP plates. However, the Tribunal noted that Notification No. 25/2014-Cus.(ADD) dated 09.06.2014 imposes anti-dumping duty on pre-sensitized aluminum plates at the rate of .22 USD per kg. Since the imported goods were pre-sensitized aluminum plates, the anti-dumping duty under this notification was applicable. The Tribunal directed the recomputation of duty at .22 USD per kg instead of .40 USD per kg.

Issue No. 2: Classification Under Correct CTH
The department contended that the goods should be classified under CTH 3701, which attracts a higher Basic Customs Duty (BCD) of 10%, instead of CTH 84425020, which attracts 7.5%. The Commissioner (Appeals) had classified the goods under CTH 8442, citing that digital printing plates could fall under Chapter 37, 76, or 84, and applying Rule 3(c) of the General Rules of Interpretation, which suggests classification under the heading that occurs last in numerical order.

The Tribunal examined the chapter headings and explanatory notes. Chapter Heading 8442 pertains to machinery and equipment for preparing printing components, whereas Chapter Heading 3701 specifically addresses photographic plates and films. The Tribunal concluded that the goods, being sensitized plates, are excluded from Chapter 8442 and are more appropriately classified under CTH 3701. This classification aligns with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's guidance in LML Limited (2010 (258) ELT 321), which emphasizes the use of Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) explanatory notes for tariff classification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). It held that the anti-dumping duty at the rate of .22 USD per kg under Notification No. 25/2014 is recoverable from the respondent-importer. Additionally, the differential BCD amounting to Rs. 1,43,233/- along with interest is also recoverable. The Tribunal restored the original order imposing penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act. The department's appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was set aside.

[Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2024]