Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 396 - AT - CustomsExemption from ADD - ‘vitrified tiles’ - import from Peoples Republic of China and United Arab Emirates - ‘new shippers review’ - compliance with condition of exporter combination in the context of the duality expressed therein - Held that: - Confronted, as we are, with two entities designated exporters, the lack of a definition of ‘export’ or ‘exporter’ in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the contextual disconnect with the definition in Customs Act, 1962, common parlance usage compel us to perceive the transaction from the perspective of the importer; probably, there is a justification to do so as the duty in dispute is leviable on imported goods. An importer contracts with its supplier and, being a sale contract, it finds one entity at each end of sale and purchase. Likewise, place of export cannot be in plural and any other location before arrival can only be transshipment points. Patently, exclusion of one of the two entities listed in the exporter’s claim would shift the pertinent duty to sl. no. 10; both are required to be associated with the import transaction to be entitled to ‘nil’ rate of anti dumping duty. Therefore, there is no basis for Revenue to contend that the exemption is applicable only if the import originates from M/s Ableace; for if that were to be so, there is no role whatsoever for the exporter in China in the transaction between M/s RAK Ceramics Pvt Ltd and M/s Ableace. Implicitly, the transaction between M/s Joyson Ceramic Materials Co. Ltd and the importer in India has to be placed through M/s Ableace to be exempted from anti-dumping duty. Without this structuring, the international practice in documentation of shipping cannot also be complied with. Therefore, the impugned order is legal and proper in allowing the benefit of exemption from anti-dumping duty.
|