TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initive anti-dumping duty. The corrigendum notified on Feb. 2012 can be made applicable only for the goods for which bills of entry are filed on or after Feb. 7, 2012 - The said corrigendum cannot be applied retrospectively for the goods which have already landed into and for which appropriate Bill of Entry were filed for the reason that an importer who has imported goods on which no anti-dumping was leviable cannot be saddled with the same by issuing a corrigendum and that too in a full-fledged mid-term review done by authority – Relied on judgment in Mascot International vs Commissioner of Customs (Exp.) [2013 (11) TMI 600 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and was held in the favour of the assessee. The scope of the examination was not for enhancement of the product scope i.e., width exceeding 1250 MM and product is defined as cold rolled flat products of stainless of weight of 600 MM upto 1250 MM - The intent of the levy of anti-dumping duty by the Authority is very clear that the product upto 1250 MM is liable for anti-dumping duty; that the Notification 86/2011 was issued in the background that in the absence of tolerance in the recommendation of corresponding Notification the products o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010. Subsequently, after initiating a mid term review, the designated authority issued corrigendum which was notified by Notification NO. 86/2011-Customs wherein the scope of the subject goods was expanded as also extending the tolerance limit of the products under consideration on which anti-dumping duty was imposed. The Customs authorities seized the consignments imported by the appellants for which Bills of Entry were filed on 14.10.2011 and released the same provisionally. After conducting investigation and recording various statements, DRI issued the Show Cause Notice dtd 13.4.2012 to main appellant as well as the other appellants. All the appellants herein contested the Show Cause Notice on merits as well as on jurisdiction of the DRI issued Show Cause Notice. The Adjudicating Authority after following due process of law, held against all the appellants. Vide the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority, confiscated the goods which were seized and provisionally released, imposed redemption fine in lieu of the release of goods, confirmed anti-dumping duty on the consignments imported earlier along with interest, and also imposed penalties. 3. Shri Laxmi kumar an along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Grade EN 1.4512 and also the tolerance limit made applicable for the goods imported seems to be incorrect. It is his submission that once the designated authority conducts a mid-term review, it is quasi-judicial function and any findings notified thereof which are made effective by issuance of Notification by the Dept. of Revenue would be effective from the date the said findings are notified. It is also his submission that the tolerance limit as brought into play has to be on the positive side only, which would mean that any goods which are imported having width less than 1250 mm will be covered and any goods which are imported of width more than 1250 mm will be excluded. For this submission, he would draw our attention to the findings recorded by the designated authority in the mid-term review and submit that the authority specifically recorded that flat cold rolled products of Stainless Steel of width beyond 1250 mm were rightly excluded from the purview of definition of anti-dumping duty. It is his submission that when the original proceedings of anti-dumping duty were initiated, they excluded the products which were having width of more than 1250 mm from the scope for levy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Stainless Steel Flat Products as more than 1250 mm. The Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that corrigendum issued by the designated authority after the mid term review of anti-dumping duty initiated would be applicable from the date the anti-dumping duty was imposed. 9. The findings of the Adjudicating authority in applying the corrigendum dtd Feb. 7, 2012 and also applying the tolerance level fixed by Notification No. 86/2011-customs from the date of the imposition of anti dumping duty is not in accordance with the law for more than one reason. 9.1 Firstly, we find that the dimensions which were declared by the appellants on the products which were imported were indicated as the products width more than 1250 mm. The seized goods were put to examination and on examination it was found that the goods were having maximum width as 1278 1279 mm. In our considered view, if the physical examination of the goods as indicated having average width of the goods imported by the appellant is 1278 - 1279 mm, it is a clear indicator that the said products were not covered for imposition of definitive anti dumping duty. It is our view, can be deduced from the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h beyond 1250 mm is excluded from imposition of anti-dumping duty and same is maintained in mid-term review. If that being so, we find that the Adjudicating Authority could not have applied the tolerance level as prescribed by the Notification No. 86/2011-Cus to the products imported by the appellants. 9.2 Secondly, we also find that the designated authority while recording the findings on definitive anti-dumping duty had specifically excluded the Cold Rolled Flat products of Stainless Steel of grade EN 1.4512 from the purview of the definitive anti dumping duty. In our view, the corrigendum issued by the designated authority and notified by the Dept of Revenue in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) on Feb. 2012 can be made applicable only for the goods for which bills of entry are filed on or after Feb. 7, 2012. The said corrigendum cannot be applied retrospectively for the goods which have already landed into and for which appropriate Bill of Entry were filed for the reason that an importer who has imported goods on which no anti-dumping was leviable cannot be saddled with the same by issuing a corrigendum and that too in a full fledged mid-term review done by designated auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of tolerance even width upto 1250 MM escaped duty as imported widths. 9) It is observed by the Designated Authority that the present review is not for enhancement of he product scope is or clarification with regard to the prescribing tolerance in respect of the width of the product under consideration and no addition to new product has been requested. Thereafter the said Notification came into force which prescribed that whereby width tolerance of (+) 30MM was applied to mill-edged cold rolled flat products of stainless steel for specified width of 1000 MM or more, but not exceeding 1250 MM. 10) From the above examination, we find that the scope of the examination was not for enhancement of the product scope i.e., width exceeding 1250 MM and product is defined as cold rolled flat products of stainless of weight of 600 MM upto 1250 MM. From the said scope, the intent of the levy of anti-dumping duty by the Designated Authority is very much clear that the product upto 1250 MM is liable for anti-dumping duty; that the Notification 86/2011 was issued in the background that in the absence o tolerance in the recommendation of corresponding Notification the products of width 1250 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
