2019 (7) TMI 469 - AT - Customs

Imposition of ADD - imports of Float glass and processed glass - Appellant contended that since the glass imported by them is of extra clear variety which is different from ordinary float glass and moreover such extra float glass is not manufactured in India, hence the anti dumping duty is not imposable on their imports - HELD THAT - Vide Notification No.4/2009 Cus dated 06.01.2009, the Anti Dumping duty has been imposed upon clear and tinted variety of float glass which is imported into India which is originated or imported from Peoples Republic of China and Indonesia. We find that as per the literature produced before us the extra Clear glass is altogether a different variety of glass. The glass making technique and the raw material itself are different as the clear glass contains more iron, the extra clear glass contains less iron. From the literature on such glass manufacturing from STEGBAR Data Sheet VI we find that a difference in products as well as clarity of vision has been shown. The Appellant has also produced a certificate issued by Federation of Safety Glass certifying that both types of glasses are different and extra clear glass is not manufactured in India. In such situation there is no reason to hold that the importation of such goods would cause injury to the domestic glass industry. The Tribunal in case of INDIAN REFRACTORY MAKERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS DESIGNATED AUTHORITY 2000 (2) TMI 344 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI has held that if dumped import of an article does not or is not capable of causing injury to the domestic industry, imposition of Anti Dumping duty is not warranted as it only increases cost to Indian importer without affording any protection to Indian manufacturers of like article. The imports are not liable of anti dumping duty and accordingly the impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of anti-dumping duty on imported "Extra Float Glass"
- Classification of "Extra Clear Float Glass" under the anti-dumping notification
- Examination of technical specifications and characteristics of different types of glass
- Consideration of injury to domestic industry by the importation of "Extra Clear Float Glass"

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved appeals against an Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad, regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported "Extra Float Glass." The key issue was the classification of "Extra Clear Float Glass" under the anti-dumping notification. The Appellant argued that since the imported glass was of the extra clear variety, different from ordinary float glass and not manufactured in India, the anti-dumping duty should not apply. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals, stating that the characteristics of "Extra Clear Float Glass" did not exclude it from the anti-dumping duty notification.

The Appellate Tribunal analyzed technical literature presented by the parties to determine the differences between clear float glass and extra clear float glass. It was noted that extra clear glass, with reduced iron content, had higher light transmittance compared to clear glass. The Tribunal found that the manufacturing process, raw materials, and characteristics of extra clear glass were distinct from ordinary float glass, supporting the argument that the anti-dumping duty should not apply to the imported goods. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the absence of injury to the domestic industry due to the importation of extra clear glass, as certified by the Federation of Safety Glass.

In contrast, the Revenue supported the initial order, but the Tribunal, after reviewing the evidence and technical specifications, concluded that "Extra Clear Float Glass" should not be subject to anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal highlighted the differences in prices between clear glass and extra clear glass, further supporting the distinction between the two types of glass. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, ruling that the imports were not liable for anti-dumping duty, and allowed the appeals with consequential reliefs. The judgment emphasized the unique characteristics of extra clear glass and the lack of injury to the domestic industry, leading to the decision in favor of the Appellant.