2025 (7) TMI 1471 - AT - Customs

Levy of Anti-dumping duty - aluminum alloy wheels imported from China on provisional basis - mis-declaration of country of origin - HELD THAT - During the relevant period goods such as aluminum alloy wheels imported from China were attracting anti-dumping duty. The investigation started with an intelligence that appellant was mis-declaring the country of origin and evading anti-dumping duty. Therefore on looking for evidence that was put forth by the Revenue to establish that in respect of 30 bills of entry in respect of which investigation took place whether there was any mis-declaration of country of origin and whether the goods were imported from China or goods were manufactured or supplied by China and were routed through Taiwan. The record does not indicate any import dealt with in this appeal by appellant from Fortune Rainbow Co. Ltd Taiwan. Therefore it is clear that though the certificate of origin number of import at serial no. 30 of said table annexed to show cause notice matches with the certificate of origin which is suspected to be forged but the same certificate of origin number matches with another transshipment which relates to Fortune Rainbow company limited Taiwan from whom the appellants have not imported any of the said 30 consignments. Further while filing additional written submissions the appellant has submitted that the assessment of the goods to duty was completed and no re-assessment was done in respect of said bill of entry including at serial no. 30 of list of bills of entry was done by proper officer resorting to Sub-section 4 of Section 17 of Customs Act 1962 thereby after the period of limitation the assessment has become final. By taking the said evidences and facts available on record there are no evidence to establish that in respect of the said 30 bills of entry there was any evidence to establish that the said goods were either manufactured or supplied from China or were routed through Taiwan after being supplied from China. The goods under consideration did not attract anti-dumping duty - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether anti-dumping duty is payable on aluminum alloy wheels imported from Taiwan when the goods are alleged to be of Chinese origin or routed through China.Whether mis-declaration of country of origin justifies invocation of extended period of limitation under Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for demand of anti-dumping duty.Whether provisional anti-dumping duty imposed for six months can be demanded for the period after expiry and before definitive imposition.Whether the assessment of imported goods cleared after payment of appropriate duty can be reopened without valid reassessment under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.Whether penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is imposable in absence of proven mis-declaration or evasion.Whether confiscation of goods is tenable in law in the circumstances of the case.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The goods under consideration, aluminum alloy wheels imported from Taiwan, did not attract anti-dumping duty as there was no evidence that they were manufactured or supplied from China or routed through China; the allegation of mis-declaration of country of origin was not established.The extended period of limitation under Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be invoked without evidence of mis-declaration; here, all certificates of origin were valid and accepted at the time of import and assessment.The provisional anti-dumping duty imposed for six months ended on 11.10.2014 and no demand can be made for the period between expiry of provisional duty and definitive imposition on 21.05.2015; no proceedings can be taken post expiry of provisional period.The assessments of all bills of entry, including the one dated 05.02.2017, were completed and no reassessment or speaking order under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act was passed within the prescribed time; hence, assessments became final and cannot be reopened.Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were not sustainable due to lack of evidence of evasion or mis-declaration by the appellants.Confiscation of goods was untenable in law as the goods were cleared after proper assessment and payment of applicable duties.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, including Section 108 (recording of statements), Section 17 (self-assessment and reassessment of duty), Section 28 (limitation for demand of duty), and penalty provisions under Sections 112(a) and 114AA.The Court relied on documentary evidence including certificates of origin, commercial invoices, and correspondence from the Consulate General of India, Hong Kong, which confirmed that except one company (Futek Alloy Company Limited), no Taiwanese company imported aluminum alloy wheels from China, and the appellant did not import from that company.The Court noted that suspicion of forgery of one certificate of origin was unsubstantiated and related to a different importer not involved in the appeals, emphasizing the settled legal principle that "suspicion cannot take place of proof."The Court distinguished the present facts from precedent cases cited by Revenue, including the Supreme Court ruling in Commissioner Vs. Bhoormull, finding them inapplicable.The Court emphasized that proper officer's acceptance of certificates of origin and final assessment without reassessment within statutory time barred reopening of the assessments.There was no doctrinal shift or dissent; the decision reaffirmed established principles on limitation, self-assessment, and evidentiary standards for invoking anti-dumping duties and penalties.