9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehousing Bill of Entry No. 3948764 dated 18.01.2016 for the clearance of Melamine (CTH 29336100) and paid Anti dumping duty of Rs. 13,06,670/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Six Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy only) under Notification No. 48/2012 Cus. (ADD) dated 08.10.2012. Thereafter vide letter dated 25.10.2016, the appellant requested the AC, Customs to reassess the subject Ex-bond Bill of Entry No. 5662 dated 29.04.2016 since the Anti-dumping duty is not applicable for the said import because the country of origin and the country of export is from Russia. However the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD Bangalore vide letter dated 26.10.2016 rejected the request of the appellant for re-assessment stating that the subject Bill of Entry was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Officer but as per the said Notification 48/2012, he was not required to pay the Anti-dumping duty and therefore he is entitled to get the amendment in the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act and consequently is entitled for the refund of the excess duty paid by him. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. CC, Delhi - 2010 (250) E.L.T. 30 (Del.) b. C.C (NS-III), JNCH, Nhava Sheva Vs. Physical Research Laboratory - 2017 (357) E.L.T. 475 (Tri.-Mumbai) 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that when the Bill of Entry was filed objection was raised by the Department and it was found that the appellant is li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the country of origin, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the Notification 48/2012. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have filed the Bill of Entry and an objection was raised regarding the liability of the appellant to pay the Anti-dumping duty which was paid by the appellant without any protest. Further I find that as per the Notification, the appellant is not liable to pay the Anti-dumping duty if the appellant clearly establishes that the country of origin and the country of export is from Russia. Further I find that the objection of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is an inordinate delay in challenging the assessment is not ten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
