9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 601 - AT - CustomsLevy of Anti-dumping Duty - aluminium based copper clad laminates imported by the respondent, which is a manufacturer of printed circuit boards - notification dated 06.12.2021 - HELD THAT - As the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that aluminium based copper clad laminates are not manufactured in India has not been controverted by the appellant, the three appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issue involves consideration of whether anti-dumping duty under the notification dated 06.12.2021 on 'flat rolled products of aluminum falling' under Chapter Heading 7606-7607 to the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 originating in or exported from China could have been imposed on 'aluminum based copper clad laminates' imported by the respondent, a manufacturer of 'printed circuit boards'. Summary: Issue 1: The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of three appeals filed by the respondent against the assessment of Bills of Entry dated 27.12.2021, 05.01.2022, and 05.01.2022, leading to the filing of three appeals by the Department. Details: The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the product imported by the respondent, aluminum based copper clad laminates, is not manufactured in India, and therefore, there is no question of injury being caused to the domestic industry. The respondent did not raise any ground that this product is being manufactured in India. The counsel for the respondent submitted an affidavit stating that aluminum based copper clad laminates are not manufactured in India due to non-availability of technology. Since the finding that the product is not manufactured in India was not contested by the appellant, the appeals filed by the department were dismissed. Outcome: The appeals filed by the department were dismissed as the product, aluminum based copper clad laminates, was found not to be manufactured in India, and no challenge to this finding was raised by the appellant. The cross-objection and stay applications were also disposed of accordingly.
|
