2021 (12) TMI 292 - AT - Customs

Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - import of float glass of thickness 3.8mm - tolerance of thickness of goods - N/N. 48/2014-Customs (ADD) dated 11th December 2014 - HELD THAT - As nominal thickness has not been defined in BIS and moreover when actual thickness is available then nobody can extend the tolerance to demand anti dumping duty from the appellant. Moreover for earlier imports the goods have been verified and allowed to be cleared by the customs authorities. In that circumstances it is held that the demand against the appellant is not sustainable and accordingly the same is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of Anti Dumping duty in terms of Notification No. 48/2014-Customs (ADD) dated 11th December 2014 for imported float glass of 3.8 mm thickness.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Demand of Anti Dumping Duty
The appellant contested the demand of anti dumping duty on the imported float glass of 3.8 mm thickness, arguing that the goods fell within the tolerance limit and were not liable for the duty. The appellant cited similar cases where anti dumping duty demands were dropped for goods with the same thickness. The Authorized Representative maintained that the duty was applicable as per the notification's provisions.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Nominal Thickness
The Additional Commissioner and Joint Commissioner in separate judgments examined the issue of nominal thickness and tolerance as per BIS 14900:2000. They both concluded that the tolerance limit should not be extended to demand anti dumping duty when the actual thickness falls within the declared range. They emphasized the strict construction of statutory provisions and the importance of adhering to the notified thickness range.

Issue 3: Application of Extended Period of Limitation
The judgments also addressed the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was noted that in the absence of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement by the importer, the extended period cannot be invoked. The examination reports confirmed that the goods were cleared without payment of anti dumping duty based on proper declarations and verifications.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal agreed with the findings of the Additional Commissioner and Joint Commissioner, holding that the demand against the appellant was not sustainable. As nominal thickness was not defined by BIS and the actual thickness was within the declared range, extending the tolerance to demand anti dumping duty was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the demand and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.