9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those producers which are at Serial No 1 entitled to lower Anti Dumping Duty, while others being subjected to higher rate of duty. The claim of the appellant is that the goods in the present instance were manufactured by M/s. Xinjian Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Ltd. (hereinafter called "Alkali Company") which as per the appellant is the manufacture of the goods. However, department is of the view that the exporter claimed that is M/s. Xingzian Zhongtai Chemical Company Ltd. (hereinafter called "Chemical Company") is the manufacturer and therefore, required to be subjected to the higher rate of Anti Dumping Duty as per the same notification i.e. Notification No. 32/2019-Cus. (ADD). The basis of the department's claim is that there is name of "Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies i.e. transport shipping (China Corporation Ltd.) also mentions Alkali Company as the manufacturer. Same is the case with transit insurance issued in this regard and which is available at page 32 of the paper book. Appellants also enclosed the Certificate of analysis of the concerned consignment issued on March 26, 2021 which is also an internal document of Alkali Co. Ltd. Further, the Bill of Entry No. 3570118 dated 15.04.2024 also indicates that "Chemical Company" as an exporter on behalf of "Alkali Company Ltd". 3.1 We have also found that at Serial No. 1 of the relevant notification, against lower rate of USD 61.14 PMT the name of Alkali Company Ltd. has been mentioned, whereas all other Companies and other producers from China a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but by paying duty under protest for the sake of early clearance. Therefore, all the documentary evidence produced by the appellant remains uncontroverted and cannot be ousted by mere mention of name on sacks, which do not even indicate that "Chemical Company' was manufacturer. 3.3 We also find that, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his findings has done away with confiscation of goods and imposing of fine under Section 125, and penalty under Section 112 (of the Customs Act, 1962), on the cogent basis that the Bill of Entry was filed on the basis of documents received. Therefore, on the basis of available documents, the goods have been held, to be non-offending goods. However, despite the same document, differential duty has been demanded, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
