2019 (11) TMI 542 - AT - Customs

Levy of Anti-dumping duty - sodium saccharin - benefit of N/N. 41/2007 - case of appellant is that the demand is time-barred as the goods were imported; goods were examined and tested and were provisionally released against bond; provisional assessment was finalised and test bond was cancelled on 13-11-2009, show cause notice was issued on 21-10-2010 which is beyond six months. HELD THAT - The N/N. 41/2007 136/2009 mentions the item to be only saccharin falling under Tariff item 2925 11 00 and not Salts of Saccharin - unless the notification is suitably worded cannot be claimed to be of all grades importantly, when Anti-Dumping Duty notification mentions the names of only the saccharin, it cannot be read to include its salts also. The notification did not intend to levy Anti-Dumping Duty on salts of saccharin as submitted by the appellant - the N/N. 82/2001 Customs dated 30-7-2001 imposing Anti-Dumping Duty on Theophylline, Caffeine and Salts, it is not the case by the department that the impugned notification are similarly worded. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The department has assessed the goods on provisional basis after obtaining a test report, the assessment was finalised and the bond was cancelled under such circumstances, suppression of fact etc. cannot be alleged to invoke extended period of limitation - the SCN is barred by limitation. The anti-dumping duty is applicable to only Saccharin and not salt of Saccharin - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred demand of Anti-Dumping Duty on sodium saccharin.
2. Applicability of Anti-Dumping Duty on salts of saccharin.
3. Interpretation of notification regarding imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty.
4. Limitation period for issuance of show cause notice.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant argued that the demand for Anti-Dumping Duty was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond six months of the goods being provisionally released against bond. Citing various cases, the appellant contended that the notice was time-based and should be considered barred by limitation.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that the Anti-Dumping Duty should only apply to 'saccharin' and not to 'salts of saccharin'. They supported this argument by referencing specific cases where it was established that duties imposed on a chemical do not extend to its salts. The appellant highlighted that the subsequent notification also mentioned only 'saccharin', further supporting their position.

Issue 3:
The interpretation of the notification regarding the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty was crucial. The appellant emphasized that the wording of the notification specifically mentioned 'saccharin' and not 'salts of saccharin'. They pointed out a previous judgment by the Bombay High Court, which stated that an entry mentioning a chemical does not include its salt. The tribunal agreed that the notification should be strictly interpreted based on its wording.

Issue 4:
Regarding the limitation period for issuing the show cause notice, the tribunal found that since the goods were provisionally assessed, tested, and released against bond, any allegation of suppression of facts could not warrant an extended period of limitation. They concluded that the show cause notice was indeed time-barred based on the circumstances of the case.

In the final judgment, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the Anti-Dumping Duty applied only to 'saccharin' and not to 'salt' of saccharin. The decision was based on the specific wording of the notification and the interpretation of relevant legal precedents. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, granted to the appellant.