2013 (11) TMI 1350 - 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:
- Mis-declaration of goods and liability to pay anti-dumping duty.
- Confiscation of goods, demand for anti-dumping duty, redemption fine, and penalty imposition.
- Comparison with a similar case and applicability of anti-dumping duty.
- Arguments for and against the imposition of anti-dumping duty.
- Interpretation of the relevant notifications and tolerance limits.
- Decision on the demand of anti-dumping duty, confiscation, and penalties.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of mis-declaration of goods and the liability to pay anti-dumping duty. The impugned order found the goods mis-declared and imposed anti-dumping duty, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties on the appellants. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides, with the appellants citing a previous case where anti-dumping duty was not levied. The Revenue argued for the imposition of anti-dumping duty based on mis-declaration and notification provisions.

In the referenced case of Mascot International, the Tribunal clarified the scope of the examination regarding the width tolerance for anti-dumping duty. It was observed that the intent was not to levy duty on products exceeding 1250 MM width. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions and intent behind the notifications to determine the applicability of anti-dumping duty based on the actual width of the goods.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument regarding tolerance limits, emphasizing that tolerance should be added to the actual width found in the consignments. As the width in the present case exceeded 1250 MM, beyond the tolerance limit, the Tribunal concluded that the notifications were not applicable. Consequently, the demand for anti-dumping duty was set aside, leading to the dismissal of confiscation and penalties. The appellants were allowed to re-export the goods as they had not violated the Customs Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief, if any, in favor of the appellants. The judgment highlights the importance of accurate declaration and the interpretation of notification provisions in determining the liability for anti-dumping duty, confiscation, and penalties under customs regulations.