Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 399 - HC - CustomsLevy of Anti Dumping Duty - assessee himself opted for the condition Sl. No.2 of the Notification No.23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 - benefit of exemption notification to the assessee even in absence of any conclusive proof/evidence as to the goods for sale in DTA were manufactured wholly out of indigenous raw material - total DTA sales were undertaken by the Respondent on the raw materials by not paying anti dumping duty - Respondent’s claim of maintenance of separate account of imported and indigenous material was an afterthought? HELD THAT:- The tribunal took into consideration the factual position and noted that the respondent had maintained separate register. Further, the tribunal on examining the facts, found that the difference cited between the table (as mentioned in the order-in-original)and the issue register for ADD material submitted by the respondent with respect to “Issues to Production” and “closing stock” was only on account of difference in methodology adopted for reflection of closing stock in the table vis-à-vis the register and the same was duly reconciled and certified in terms of the chartered accountants certificate which was furnished before the tribunal. Further, the tribunal pointed that macro-comparison of the available stock of polypropylene from known ADD jurisdiction vis-à-vis DTA clearance during 2009-10 and 2010-11 by the adjudicating authority also suffers from infirmities and had agreed with the respondent that DTA clearance of finished goods prior to 30th July, 2009, the date of imposition of anti dumping duty could not have been considered and the stock of polypropylene as on the date of introduction of anti dumping duty could not have been ignored in such macro comparison. As in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX., LUDHIANA VERSUS MALWA COTTON SPINNING MILLS LTD. [2010 (2) TMI 260 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT], the respondent had maintained separate accounts for the goods which was examined by the tribunal and relief has been granted. Thus, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|