2013 (11) TMI 600 - AT - Customs

Anti dumping duty - Notification NO. 86/2011 - Whether Stainless Steel Cold Rolled coils having width of 1256 MM to 1259 MM are covered under Notification 86/2011 for imposing anti-dumping duty or not - Held that - scope of the examination was not for enhancement of the product scope i.e. width exceeding 1250 Mm and product is defined as cold rolled flat products of stainless steel of weight of 600 MM up to 1250 MM. From the said scope, the intent of the levy of anti-dumping duty by the Designated Authority is very much clear that the product up to 1250 MM is liable for anti-dumping duty; that the Notification 86/2011 was issued in the background that in the absence of tolerance in the recommendation of corresponding Notification the products of width 1250 MM or lower are being declared as having width of 1251 MM to 1300 MM and thereby the anti-dumping duty is circumvented. It is further found that larger number of consignments where the width has been declared as 1251 MM or marginally above the 1250 MM limit specified in the final finding, thereby escaping anti-dumping duty. Therefore, this Notification came to levy for tolerance of ( ) 30MM in the width - any product having width more than 1250 MM are not leviable for anti-dumping duty. Admittedly, in this case the width of the product on physical examination was found between 1256 MM to 1259 MM. Therefore admittedly the width of the product in question is more than 1250 MM. Therefore Notification 14/2010 amended to Notification 86/2011 is not applicable to the appellant. As Notification is not applicable to the appellant, therefore question of levy of anti-dumping duty of the goods imported by the appellant does not arise. Accordingly, demand in the impugned order is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification 86/2011 for imposing anti-dumping duty on imported goods; Whether Stainless Steel Cold Rolled coils with width of 1256 MM to 1259 MM are covered under the notification.

Analysis:

1. Background and Investigation: The case involves an appeal against an order imposing anti-dumping duty on imported Stainless Steel Cold Rolled coils. The goods were classified under CTH 72193590, with the country of origin declared as Taiwan. The investigation revealed that the goods were mill-edged, leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duty and seizure of the consignments.

2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that the goods' width exceeded 1250 MM, making them ineligible for anti-dumping duty under Notification 86/2011. They cited the original investigation's scope and the lack of intent to include products over 1250 MM width. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their interpretation of the notification's scope and limitations.

3. Respondent's Argument: On the other hand, the respondent contended that the goods' width tolerance of (+) 30 MM applied, making the 1280 MM width fall under Notification 86/2011. They argued that products are not produced to exact dimensions and that the notification's intent was to prevent duty circumvention due to width misdeclarations.

4. Tribunal's Decision: After considering both arguments, the Tribunal analyzed the notifications and the Designated Authority's intent. They concluded that the anti-dumping duty did not apply to products exceeding 1250 MM width. Since the goods in question had a width between 1256 MM to 1259 MM, the Tribunal found the notification inapplicable and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

5. Final Verdict: The Tribunal clarified that the scope of the notification was limited to products up to 1250 MM width, emphasizing the intent to prevent duty circumvention. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting notifications within their specified limits and upheld the appellant's argument regarding the width threshold for anti-dumping duty applicability.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the precise interpretation of the notification's provisions and the Designated Authority's intent, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of the appeal in favor of the appellant.