2014 (5) TMI 526 - HC - Customs

Demand of anti dumping duty - goods are of Malaysian origin and stamped as such - brought into India from China - revenue relied only on the statement of said Mr.Ashok D. Jain which was retracted later. - Held that - it is erroneous to assume that the revenue relied only on the statement of said Mr.Ashok D. Jain which was retracted later. There were other materials and they are clearly referred in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal s order. The certificates produced from the authorities in Malaysia stated that these certificates do not mention that the authorities confirmed the accuracy of the information contained therein. In such circumstances, the Tribunal relied upon the statement of Mr.Ashok D. Jain. Apart therefrom, the Tribunal has, at internal page Nos.7 and 8 of the order under challenge, assigned reasons for upholding the demand. There is not just the statement of the partner of the importing firm but the certificates of the origin furnished by the appellant have been termed as dubious. That is because of the fact that the enquiry conducted by an investigating agency revealed that M/s.M.K. Plastic Machinery (M), Malaysia is registered as a trader in machinery and equipment and the Company does not have any manufacturing facility. The machinery imported into India by M/s.Jalaram Appliances Polymers is not manufactured by this entity in Malaysia. It is in these circumstances that the finding of fact cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated in law - No substantial question of law arises - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of antidumping duty demand.
2. Reliance on statement of Mr. Ashok D. Jain.
3. Origin of goods and their importation into India.
4. Certificates from Malaysian authorities.
5. Finding of fact and substantial question of law determination.

The High Court of Bombay upheld the confirmation of antidumping duty demand in a case where the Tribunal had confirmed the demand. The appellant argued that the revenue relied solely on the retracted statement of Mr. Ashok D. Jain, claiming a substantial question of law. However, the Court disagreed, noting that there were other materials considered by the Tribunal, including certificates from Malaysian authorities. These certificates did not confirm the accuracy of the information contained therein, leading the Tribunal to rely on Mr. Jain's statement. The Court further highlighted that the importing firm's partner's statement and the appellant's origin certificates were deemed dubious due to an investigating agency's findings. The agency revealed that the Malaysian company listed as the originator of the goods did not have a manufacturing facility and did not produce the machinery imported into India. Consequently, the Court found no perversity or legal flaw in the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal as it did not raise any substantial question of law.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay's judgment addressed the issues surrounding the confirmation of antidumping duty demand, reliance on Mr. Ashok D. Jain's statement, the origin and importation of goods, certificates from Malaysian authorities, and the determination of substantial questions of law. The Court carefully analyzed the evidence and reasoning presented before dismissing the appeal for lacking a substantial question of law, emphasizing the importance of considering all materials and findings in such cases.