9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rule 2(a) of the General Interpretative Rules and other Notes of Chapter as stated in the show-cause notice - It is settled principles of law that while passing the order the authority must record the reasons, links between the materials on which certain conclusion are based and the actual conclusion. Recording of the reasons without considering the submissions of the parties is vague. Reasons must be adequate and proper, it must be sufficient, clear, explicit and based on the materials on records. In the present case, both the authorities below did not consider the materials on record insofar as the allegations in the show-cause notice and the submissions of the importer - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. - C/277 & 278/2012 - Final Order No. 40265 & 40266/2013 - Dated:- 17-7-2013 - P K Das And Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Parmod Kumar, Jt. Commr. (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Adv. PER : P K Das Both the appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The respondents imported a consignment of parts of injection moulding machines vide Bill of Entry No. 397 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that after considering various evidences as referred in the adjudication order and the physical examination of the goods, the adjudicating authority concluded that assessment was to be done after clubbing of both the Bills of Entry. It is submitted that the import consignments were deliberately split up to evade payment of anti-dumping duty and when a wrong was committed, the adjudicating authority has every right to go beyond the Bills of Entry for the purpose of assessment. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the basis of Chartered Engineer's certificate but totally ignored the fact that the imported injection moulding machines have an essential character of the complete or finished article. He submits that the percentage of the value or component is not significant but it has to be looked into whether the article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. He submits that in this case classification of imported goods is required to be done as per the General Rules of Interpretation under Import Tariff read with relevant Chapter Notes under HSN. He particularly relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Roma Internatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted in the present case, no Notification was issued imposing anti-dumping duty on parts of injection moulding machine. He submits that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly passed the order after considering the Chartered Engineer's certificate and the law of the case. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) order may be upheld. He also submitted written submission, which was kept on record. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records and also the written submissions filed by both sides. 7. It has been alleged in the show-cause notice that the respondents imported parts of injection moulding machines vide Bills of Entry No.397872 dated 2.1.2010 and 394117 dated 29.12.2009 which are liable to be treated as one unit in dis-assembled and partly incomplete condition and the classification of the goods should be changed from Heading 84779000 to 84771000 applicable to injection moulding machines and they are liable to pay @ 223% CIF value of anti-dumping duty vide Notification No. 47/2009-Cus. dated 12.5.2009. 7.1 The charges were framed on the basis that the respondents filed Bill of Entry dated 2.1.2010 and the goods were supplied by M/s. Ningbo Betterway Injection Moulding Tech ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovide tool boxes and wearing parts. The entire e-mail communications on different dates would show that the imports were being done separately to avoid payment of anti-dumping duty. The respondent No. 2 in its statement dated 25.1.2010 admitted that before imposition of anti-dumping duty in May 2009, they had imported injection moulding machine from China and after imposition of these anti-dumping duty they changed the practice and imported the parts of injection moulding machine from China. It was found that both the supplier companies had the same telephone number, same fax number, same address and same persons corresponding with the respondent and same partners. 7.5 The goods imported under both the Bills of Entry were examined by the Chartered Engineer on 2.2.2010. He opined that about 73% of the consignment pertaining to the complete machine could be stated to have been imported and the balance parts are electrical parts and drive unit which are missing and it also stated that the sets of goods imported in the said Bills of Entry belong to the same manufacturer 'Beston' but supplied from two sources. It has been alleged that in terms of Rule 2(a) to the General Rules for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble then it would be very easy to circumvent anti-dumping duty by merely removing a small insignificant parts of the machine or importing the same separately and claiming that the complete machine has not been imported. Anti-dumping duty is in the nature of a contingency trade protection measure, the sole purpose of which is to protect the domestic industry against unfair competition in the form of dumping. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined the case in totality. It has been observed in the impugned order that the adjudicating authority had not considered the submission of the respondent with proper reasons. Thus, Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the allegations of the show-cause notice while examining the submission of the respondent. 11. On the other hand, there is a force in the submission of the learned counsel that the adjudicating authority confirmed the anti-dumping duty in terms of Notification No.47/2009-Cus. for the import of injection moulding machines imported on 29.12.2009 and 2.1.2010 and the notification itself expired on 12.11.2009. The final Notification No. 39/2010-Cus. dated 23.3.2010 had imposed anti-dumping duty @ 174%, cove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
