9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether goods imported by the appellants call for anti-dumping duty. Analysis: 1. The dispute in this case revolves around the classification of goods imported from Korea as "Styrene Butadiene Copolymer Resin Kosyn KHS 68" and whether they are subject to anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 73/2000. The Customs authorities contended that the goods fall under sub-heading 3903 and are liable for anti-dumping duty, while the importer argued that since the goods were not Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR), no duty should be imposed. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs upheld the duty imposition, which was further affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 2. The designated authority under the anti-dumping law recommended duty on specific grades of Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) from various countries, including Korea. The Tribunal had previously ruled that anti-dumping duty is applicable to all grades of SBR, regardless of their classification under sub-heading 4002 or 3903. Based on this ruling, the Customs authorities believed that the imported goods fell under sub-heading 3903 and thus attracted duty. 3. The inquiry into whether the imported goods, Styrene Butadiene Copolymer Resin Kosyn KHS 68, should be subject to the anti-dumping duty on SBR was addressed by the designated authority in a previous order. The authority noted that the goods did not fall under the nomenclature of "Synthetic Rubber" and did not justify imposing duty under sub-heading 3903. The Tribunal reiterated that duty applies to all types of SBR, emphasizing the correct classification by Customs authorities. 4. Chemical examinations confirmed that the imported goods were Styrene Butadiene Synthetic Resin and did not meet the criteria for synthetic rubber under Chapter 40. The reports indicated no connection to Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) subject to the anti-dumping investigation, further supporting the argument against duty imposition. 5. The adjudicating authority and the appellate authority differed in their classification of the imported goods. While the former accepted that the goods were not synthetic rubber and imposed duty based on the Tribunal's previous ruling, the latter concluded that the product was Styrene Butadiene Co-polymer, akin to SBR. However, the appellate authority's basis for this conclusion lacked substantial evidence, leading to the decision that the goods were not subject to duty. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the imported goods were not Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) as targeted by the anti-dumping duty. Consequently, the imposition of duty on the goods covered by the bills of entry was deemed unjustified, and the authorities were directed to release the goods without levying anti-dumping duty. 7. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, setting aside the anti-dumping duty imposed on the imported goods and instructing the authorities to release the consignments without duty.
|
