9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es was required to be allowed. The tribunal has observed that the nominal thickness has not been defined in BIS and moreover, when actual thickness is available, in that event, it would not be appropriate to extend the tolerance so as to raise a demand of anti-dumping duty under the notification in question - there is nothing objectionable in the findings as recorded by the tribunal. It is also not in dispute that the earlier similar imports of the respondent were duly verified and were allowed to be cleared by the customs authorities. There cannot be two different standards for similar imports in regard to applicability of the said notification. Thus, no substantial question of law would arise - there is no merit in the appeal - appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minal thickness of 4 mm [as per Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) 14900:2000], hence, the goods were liable for anti-dumping duty at the rate of USD 58.22/MT, in terms of Notification No. 48/2014- Customs (ADD) dated 11 December, 2014 at Sr. No. 1. On such premise, the goods were seized and subsequently allowed to be released provisionally on certain conditions. 4. On scrutiny of the previous import data of the subject goods, it was noticed that a total 68 consignments of Clear Float Glass of thickness 3.8 mm were imported by the respondent from Saudi Arabia without levy of anti-dumping duty in terms of the said notification. A show cause notice was accordingly issued to the respondent demanding anti-dumping duty in terms of the said noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were considered out of the purview of anti-dumping duty in terms of the said notification. 6. We have heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue. We have perused the record, as also the impugned order passed by the tribunal. Mr. Mishra s submissions are not different from what were advanced before the Tribunal. It clearly appears that not only in the case of Mudit Glassworks Place (supra), but also in respondent s own case in respect of similar imports, the demand of anti-dumping duty was dropped. The tribunal has considered the contentions of the appellant as also of the respondents and referring to such two decisions, has come to a conclusion that the respondents appeal in such circumstances was required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
