2024 (11) TMI 135 - AT - Customs

Demand of anti dumping duty - appellant had imported PVC Resin SG 5 from China appellant have claimed to have imported the goods from CNSG Jilantai Salt Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd whereas the bags in which Goods were found to bear the name CNSG Jilantai Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd - only difference between the two names is word salt does not appear in the name printed on the bags - HELD THAT - The name of the supplier appears at Sr No. VI of column 6 of the said table against the Sr No. 1. In the case of M/s. Vinayak Trading (supra) the case pertains to import made from the manufacture namely M/s. Xinjian Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Ltd. appearing at Sr No. IV of column 6 against the Sr. No. 1 of the notification. Other facts of the case are identical. The appellants have produced the documents like invoice, packing list and certificate of origin to the effect that the goods are manufactured by CNSG Jilantai Salt Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd . In identical circumstances benefit was allowed by Tribunal to M/s. Vinayak Trading 2024 (8) TMI 1469 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD has allowed the benefit to the similar impugned product at concessional rate by holding Alkali Company as the manufacturer by noting that Chemical Company was related and allowed the benefit to the appellants by treating Alkali Company as the producer. In view of the foregoing, since documentary evidence in any case gets precedence over assumption/suspicion emanating from the packing specially till it is controverted, we are inclined to accept the above documentary evidence including certificate of origin as adequate evidence to accept that Alkali Company were the producers in the present instance and in the fact of the matter brought on record.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of anti-dumping duty based on discrepancy in manufacturer's name on goods imported from China.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the demand of anti-dumping duty on PVC Resin SG 5 imported from China. The appellant claimed the goods were manufactured by "CNSG Jilantai Salt Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd," while the bags bore the name "CNSG Jilantai Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd." The dispute centered on the absence of the word "salt" in the latter name, leading to the denial of duty exemption under Notification No. 32/2019-Custom (ADD).

The Tribunal considered a similar case involving M/s. Vinayak Trading, where the manufacturer's name discrepancy was resolved in favor of the importer based on documentary evidence. In the Vinayak Trading case, various documents, such as the commercial invoice, packing list, certificate of origin, and transportation records, confirmed the manufacturer as "Alkali Company Ltd." despite variations in names. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence over assumptions derived from packaging discrepancies.

The Tribunal noted that the relevant notification specified different duty rates based on the manufacturer, with "Alkali Company Ltd." listed under a lower rate. Despite an unsigned certificate presented by the appellant, the overwhelming documentary evidence supported the manufacturer's identity. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of incriminating evidence against the manufacturer and criticized the Customs Department for demanding differential duty without sufficient grounds.

In light of the precedent set by the Vinayak Trading case and the compelling documentary evidence presented in the current appeal, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals. The decision was based on the principle that documentary evidence should take precedence over mere assumptions or suspicions arising from packaging discrepancies.