TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of law - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/23694-23695, 23697-23702, 23705-23706, 23708-23713, 23751, 23753-23755, 23757-23760/2014 - A/30899-30922/2017 - Dated:- 22-6-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Sh. R. Parthasarathy, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [Order Per : M. V. Ravindran] 1. All these 24 appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal Nos.92-107/2014-VCH dated 28.08.2014 and 109-116/2014-VCH dated 16.09.2014. Since all these appeals are contested by the same assessee and raise common question of law, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the reduced ADD is available only in respect of soda ash exported by Tata Chemicals, Kenya accordingly Bills of entry were assessed. Appellant contested the matter before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority did not agree with their contentions and upheld the assessment at enhanced rate. 5. Ld. Counsel after giving overall view of the business activity of the appellant takes the Bench through the entire case records. It is his submission that Tata Chemicals, Kenya is the exporter of soda ash and they are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 34/2012-Cus for discharging ADD @ US$ 20.35. It is his submission that lower authorities have erred in coming to a conclusion that the Tata Chemicals, Singapore is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing third party exporters under the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Ld. DR on the other hand draws our attention to the findings of the first appellate authority as also the various documents produced and submits that these documents indicate Tata Chemicals, Singapore as an exporter. He would rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Borax Morarji Ltd., Vs Designated Authority [2007 (215) ELT 33 (Tri-Del)] for the proposition that even when an exporter is located outside the county of export he can also export the goods and can be considered as exporter. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, it is noticed that the issue is regarding which entry of the said Notification No. 34/2012-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only. The intention of the designated authority in imposing lower rate of ADD in respect of a transaction wherein producer Tata Chemicals, Kenya and exporter of Tata Chemicals, Kenya may due to detailed examination of records and relevant documents produced by Tata Chemicals, Kenya before him during the investigation of dumping, to arrive at as to what is the dumping margin. In contrast, the entry no. 22 clearly indicates that soda ash produced in Kenya and exported out of Kenya by any other person is liable to ADD at a higher rate, is the conclusion of Designated Authority. In our considered view, the notification clearly indicates any other combination means the producer may/may not be Tata Chemicals Magada Ltd., and exporter is other t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his point are very correct and in consonance of law. We reproduce the relevant paragraphs: 5.4 It can be seen from the impugned order that after the respondent assessed the Bill of Entry No.3530144 dated 14.10.2013, applying the unit rate of $ 28.86 PMT considering the Producer Exporter as any other combination from Kenya in terms of SI.22 of the Notification No.34/2012-Cus (ADD) without considering the Appellant's contentions and explanations for applying the unit rate of $ 20.35 PMT in terms of SI.21 of the said Notification, the Appellants in their subsequent consignments submitted the Bills of Lading with the Shipper is mentioned as M/s Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited on Behalf of M/s Tata Chemicals International Pte Ltd. Simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to such a conclusion. We find that Ld. DR was correct in relying upon the decision of the ADD Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Borax Morarji Ltd., (supra) wherein in paragraph no. 3 the Tribunal held as under: 3. Admittedly, the producer ETI Maden of Turkey did not export the product itself, but the product was exported from Turkey to India through Boro Chemi International Pvt. Ltd., Singapore. The subject goods, which were exported did not reach India via Singapore, but were directly exported from Turkey to India. Obviously, therefore, the exports were made from Turkey, even though the exporter Boro Chemi International Pvt. Ltd., who was the Area Agent of the producer for Asia was located in Singapore. Even where an exporter is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
