Anti-Dumping – Demand of anti-dumping duty on the product ‘Styrene Butadiene Rubber’ (SBR) – Two show cause notices dated 23.05.2006 and 30.06.2006 were issued to the respondent alleging that it had mis-declared its goods as ‘Lutex-701’ and ‘Lutex-780’, and they were goods SBR of 1900 series on which anti-dumping duty was leviable – Goods were confiscated and anti-dumping duty, besides the levy of interest and penalty were imposed – The Commissioner of Customs held that: (i) the goods were leviable to confiscation in terms of s. 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962; (ii) the goods were chargeable to anti-dumping duty; and (iii) the respondent was liable to pay interest u/s. 28AB and penalty u/s. 112(a) r/w. s.118(a) of the Customs Act 1962 – However, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESAT) came to the conclusion that the show cause notices could not be sustained – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant-Commissioner of Customs contended that the notice to show cause dated 23.05.2006 contained a specific reference to the fact that the test report by the Indian Rubber Manufacturers’ Research Association (IRMRA) dated 06.03.2006 had revealed that the goods were found to be SBR of 1900 series and since the goods originated in Korea R.P. they were subject to anti-dumping duty and a similar averment was contained in the show cause notice dated 30.05.2006 – Further, the test reports of the IRMRA which were sought by the respondent also contained a similar finding that the goods which were imported were SBR of the 1900 series – Held: The Tribunal has set aside the decision of the Commissioner of Customs on an evidently superficial evaluation of the issues raised in the appeals – The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is “no whisper of any reason in the show cause notice to disturb the classification” claimed by the importer – This finding is contrary to the record – The show cause notice dated 23.05.2006 clearly states that the goods imported in question were declared as ‘Lutex-701’ in import documents and, as per test report from IRMRA goods were found to be SBR of 1900 Series – Similar allegations were contained in the second show-cause notice – Further, the Commissioner also recorded that the importer had also approached IRMRA independently for testing the samples of Lutex 701 and 780 in their control – A similar finding was arrived at by IRMRA from the samples furnished by the importer – None of these findings were displaced in the order of the Tribunal – The Tribunal has not looked into the merits of the appeals – The findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the record and cannot therefore be sustained – Since, the Tribunal has not considered the case of the respondent in appeal on merits, it would be appropriate to restore the proceedings back to the Tribunal for the purpose – Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.