9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted PVC Resin SG 5 from China. The said goods are subject to anti dumping duty in terms of Notification No. 32/2019- Custom (ADD). The anti dumping duty on the said goods in terms of said notification is leviable at different rates for goods received from different manufacturers. The appellant had declared that the goods are manufactured by "CNSG Jilantai Salt Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd" The revenue claim that the goods are manufactured by "CNSG Jilantai Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd " . The claim of revenue is based on the fact that the name of "CNSG Jilantai Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd " was found printed on the bags in which material was packed. 2. Learned Counsel argued that identical matter in respect of goods imported from M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... People's Republic of China Any other producer except i to vii mentioned above in column no. (6) 147.96 MT US Dollar In the instant case the appellant have claimed to have imported the goods from "CNSG Jilantai Salt Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd" whereas the bags in which Goods were found to bear the name "CNSG Jilantai Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd ". The only difference between the two names is word 'salt' does not appear in the name printed on the bags. On that ground the benefit of Sr No. 1 of the notification was denied. 5. The name of the supplier appears at Sr No. VI of column 6 of the said table against the Sr No. 1. In the case of M/s. Vinayak Trading (supra) the case pertains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alysis 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 as Per Sr. No. 2 have been subjected to USD 147.96 ADD PMT. The same is as per the recommendation made by Directorate of Anti-Dumping, which was the investigating agency in the matter and which recommended such differential duty. We also find that the "Chemical Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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, which is incorrect approach in law, as the credence to the documentary evidence cannot be ignored for duty only, when found worthy of consideration for holding goods as non-offending. Further, we find in similar situation, Order-In-Appeal No. S/49-59/CUS/MUN/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
