9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were declared as "Wool Waste". As in the wake of examination and chemical analysis, the goods were found to be Acrylic Fiber, therefore, a show cause notice dated 21-9-1998 was issued to the assessee under Sections 111(m) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity "the Act"). The penal action was also proposed to be taken under Sections 112 and 114-A of the Act against the Managing Director/partners of erring firms, who were stated to be instrumental in importing the goods in question. 2. Originally, the Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the matter, vide order dated 31-3-2001 and the goods in question were ordered to be classified as Acrylic Fibre and assessed to the duty at CIF value at the rate of US $ 1.12 per kg. On appeal file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fixed in the show cause notice and paid by the assessee was provisional in nature and thereafter the same was revised, pertaining to the relevant period. The argument is that as per Rule 21(2) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules"), if, the anti-dumping duty fixed after the conclusion of the investigation is lower than the provisional duty already imposed and collected, the differential shall be refunded to the importer. Raising a variety of arguments, in all, according to the learned counsel for the assessee that the Anti-dumping duty was fixed at a higher rate in the show cause notice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acrylic fibre in question be assessed to duty at CIF value at the rate of US $ 1.12 per Kg. Accordingly, the assessee provisionally paid the Anti-dumping duty at the rate of 42.92 per Kg., in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 21-9-1998. Thereafter, the rates of Anti-dumping duty were revised and re-fixed at the rate of 0.296 US $ per Kg. during the relevant period 1-4-1998 to 31-3-1999. Thus, it would be seen that the facts of this case are neither intricate nor much disputed. That being so, the core question, that arises for determination in this appeal, is whether the assessee is liable to pay the revised rate of Anti-dumping duty and is entitled to the refund of the amount of excess duty already provisionally paid by it or not. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Designated Authority came out with new computation of Anti-dumping duty confining strictly to the period of investigation notified. Calculation of the Anti-dumping duty in that situation also was not found to be correct because of the wrong understanding of clause (2) of Annexure 1. Thereupon, the officers of the Designated Authority were directed to requantify the Anti-dumping duty in the light of our understanding of Annexure II to the Rules. Officers have thus come forward with the correct Anti-dumping duty imposable on the parties in terms of our understanding of Annexure II. As per statement filed by them the Anti-dumping duty imposable on all exporters from USA comes to 0.296 US $ per Kg., Anti-dumping duty on all exporters from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
