Differential Anti Dumping duty cannot be demanded if the final reference price is greater than provisional reference price.

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2020

Case:- KAKS AND BILLS PVT. LTD. V/S COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN

Citation:- 2013 (297) E.L.T. 369 (Tri.-Chennai)

Brief Facts: - The applicants imported 14 consignments of Non-radial Bias Tyres, Tubes and Flaps (sets) during the period from 10-10-2006 to 19-6-2007. The adjudicating authority confirmed the anti-dumping duty of Rs. 63,52,202/- in terms of Notification No. 88/2007, dated 24-7-2007 under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also demanded appropriate interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with stay application. By Stay Order dated 13-10-2008, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 32 lakhs. The applicant filed application for reconsideration of the stay order on various grounds. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal.

Appellant’s Contention:-The appellants contended that by Notification No. 106/2006-Cus., dated 9-10-2006, anti-dumping duty was levied provisionally on the import of Non-radial Bias Tyres, Tubes and Flaps originating in or exported from People’s Republic of China and Thailand at a rate equivalent to the difference between the reference price USD 99.3 per set specified in the table of the said Notification and the landed value of the imported goods. He submits that in the present case, consignment in question exceeded the reference price (USD 99.3 per set) and no duty was payable. By Notification No. 88/2007, dated 24-7-2007, the reference price in the said notification was increased from USD 99.30 per set to USD 135.65 per set. The original authority confirmed the demand on the basis of Rule 20(1)(c) of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. Their main grievance is that the demand is not sustainable in terms of Rule 21.

Respondent’s Contention:-The Respondents submitted that Rule 21 relates to refund of duty, on the other hand, Rule 20(1) stipulates that the anti-dumping duty may be levied from the date of imposition of provisional duty. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly passed the stay order and rejected the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order.

Reasoning of Judgment:- The Hon’ble Tribunal held that Sub-rule (1) of Rule 21 provides that if the anti-dumping duty imposed by the Central Government on the basis of final findings is higher than the provisional duty already imposed and collected, the differential duty shall not be collected from the importer. In the present case, the final price is higher than the provisional price and the differential duty shall not be collected from the importer. They find force in the submission of the appellant. Accordingly, they grant waiver of pre-deposit of the differential demand of anti-dumping duty and interest thereon and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal.

Decision:- The stay was granted.

Comment:-The essence of this case is that as per Rule 21 (1) of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, if levy of anti dumping duty is on provisional basis and a reference price for the goods has been specified, the differential anti-dumping duty on account of revision of reference price on higher side due to final findings of the government could not be demanded from the importer.

Comments

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2020

Post a Comment

Query