9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imported Dead Burnt Magnesite (DBM) having MgO content not less than 97% from Peoples Republic of China and filed Bill of Entry on 30-3-96; that the Designated Authority, on a complaint received from the Magnesite Association of India, initiated an investigation on 15-5-95 on import of DBM involving MgO content ranging from 85% to 92% is that in its Preliminary Findings, the Designated Authority recommended imposing provisional anti-dumping duty on import of DBM from PR China covered by its investigation; that a Notification No. 34/96-Cus., dated 8-7-96 was issued levying provisionally anti-dumping duty on all varieties/grades of DBM which was challenged by the Appellants by a Writ Petition in the High Court of Orissa on the ground that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os. 59/96 and 98/96 were effective from the date on which they were published in the Gazette of India; that the said issue was not before the Commissioner (Appeals) as the sole issue for decision before him was whether the evidence regarding quality of DBM was available or not; that in fact they had provided along with the refund claim a copy of the Quality Inspection Certificate issued by the Independent/Neutral Surveyors M/s. Mineral Test Laboratory of Shenyang which clearly certified that the MgO content was 97.09%. The learned Advocate relied upon the decision in the case of Jairam Sons v. C.C., Cochin - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1205 (T) wherein it has been held that the Certificate produced by the Appellants cannot be totally ignored. 3. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected the Appeal filed by the Appellants that Notification Nos. 59/96-Cus. and 98/96-Cus. did not have retrospective application. The Adjudicating Authority after deciding in principle that the claim is admissible or otherwise proceeded to determine the actual amount of claim of refund to be sanctioned/rejected. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the refund in respect of B/E No. 1702, dated 4-8-95, B/E No. 1703, dated 4-8-95 and B/E No. 1818, dated 12-7-96. He, however, rejected the claim in respect of B/E No. 790, dated 30-3-96 as the proper evidence regarding the quality of goods, i.e. % of MgO content in the DBM could not be available. Hence it cannot be accepted that the subject item is not leviable to Anti-dumping duty. The Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
