2024 (12) TMI 231 - AT - Customs

Levy of Anti-Dumping duty - Import of aluminium strip (use in evaporator) (for automotive heat exchanger) - Challenge to affirmation of charging of anti-dumping duty (ADD) under section 9A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - HELD THAT - It is on record that the proper officer did not go beyond re-assessment and, yet, the first appellate authority, notwithstanding the silence thereafter, took it upon itself to offer reasons for adoption of the revised classification which may, or may not, have occurred to the proper officer when the liability to anti-dumping duty (ADD) was brought to bear - The first appellate authority was as bereft, as continued to be, of any material on record, to determine that the exercise of re-assessment conformed to the framework of the notification issued under section 9A of Customs Tariff Act. And just as it would be inappropriate to adjudge free floating attempt at determination on the part of the first appellate authority, it was no less so for the first appellate authority to venture upon a decision on merit of assessment by the original authority. There is a finding, such as it is and without scrutiny of the entry made under section 46 of Customs Act that there was no dissonance with the assessment. That the assessment which emerged was not the claim preferred in the entry and that consent of the importer had not been obtained for such alteration should have been cause for alarm in the first appellate authority. Affirmation of re-assessment without any material to go by invalidates it ab initio. The lack thereof should have prompted the first appellate authority to enforce compliance with consequence of revision. Not having done so invalidates the impugned order. The impugned orders set aside and the bills of entry restored before the original authority for disposal in the manner set out in section 17 of Customs Act - These appeals are allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of anti-dumping duty imposition on imported goods under Customs Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported aluminum strips used in automotive heat exchangers under the Customs Tariff Act. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals -II) affirmed the duty imposition without providing reasoning, leading the appellant to appeal against the order. The appellant raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the Central Government in imposing anti-dumping duty and sought relief based on the absence of a speaking order as mandated by the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the re-assessment of bills of entry lacked proper justification and cited relevant tribunal decisions in support.

The appellant contended that the first appellate authority's findings were based on presumptions without proper means of ascertainment. The appellant also highlighted a previous tribunal decision in their favor, despite an interim stay by the High Court. The authorized representative emphasized that the appeals were based on the non-applicability of a specific notification, which was thoroughly addressed in the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority provided reasons for re-assessment without proper notice to the importer, which was a deviation from statutory requirements. The appellant's initial claim for assessment solely to basic customs duty and integrated tax was transformed during assessment, leading to additional duty burden without proper self-assessment by the importer as required by the Customs Act. The Tribunal deemed this misdirection as inappropriate exercise of statutory authority and recommended bringing it to the attention of higher authorities.

The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority affirmed the re-assessment without proper justification or compliance with statutory requirements, leading to the invalidation of the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the bills of entry to the original authority for proper disposal in accordance with the Customs Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in challenging the imposition of anti-dumping duty under the Customs Tariff Act and the procedural irregularities that led to the invalidation of the impugned orders.