9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from overseas supplier, namely, M/s. Lotus Global Middle East FZE, Sharjah- U.A.E. On examination, it was noticed that 25 pallets weighing 53.660 MT (out of 66.100 MT declared as scrap) comprised of stainless-steel sheets having thickness of less than 4mm. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 15.10.2014 was issued to Respondent, inter alia, demanding anti-dumping duty amounting to Rs. 63,99,733/- on 46.646 MT (after excluding pallet Nos. 8, 11 and 23 bearing "Made in Japan" marking as Japan is not among the countries specified in Notification No. 14/2010-Cus dated 20.02.2010 for levying anti-dumping duty. 4. Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand of anti-dumping duty on C. R. Sheets of pallet Nos. 6, 7 and 17 on the ground that it bore specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re akin to the pallets of Taiwanese origin and further, in the wake of mis-declaration, the Respondent, being the importer, ought to have provided documentary evidence about the country of origin of such goods. 6 The Respondent submits that it had entered into contract dated 01.03.2014 with overseas supplier for supply of Stainless-Steel Melting Scrap Grade-201 of UAE origin and not S. S. Sheets that were wrongly shipped to them. This fact has been duly stated by Shri Bhupesh Jabarmal Jain, Proprietor of Respondent in his statement dated 07.07.2014 narrated in para 7.2 of the Show Cause Notice. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn on account of the inability of Respondent to produce certificate of origin in respect of items not ordered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile sustaining demand on other issues. The department is of the view that the demand as above of Rs. 59,19,491/- ought to be sustained for Anti Dumping Duty by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the same should have been treated as Taiwanese origin, in the facts and circumstances of the matter and it was for the importer to show that these was not of Taiwanese origin. They have also relied upon the case law to the effect that if something is alleged in show cause notice, it is for the appellants to rebut the allegation. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. We find the department is aggrieved by that portion of the order whereby 19 pallets out of 25 which were having no country of origin mentioned on them and which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, I am of the view that just because the sheets are of similar grade and thickness, they cannot be said to be of Taiwanese origin unless there is clear evidence in the form of markings on the sheet itself that they are of Taiwanese origin." 7.1 It is clear that the Learned Commissioner while authorizing the order has treated the goods on which they were no marking of the country of origin to be of other than Chinese and Japanese origin. The Department is of the view that the simply because mis-declaration happened in the instant case in as far as sheets hidden in the scrap were declared as scrap only, therefore, in the face of mis-declaration, the Commissioner should have presumed that 19 disputed pallets were also of Chinese/Taiwanese o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een spelt out in the Statute itself, which in this instance is Customs Act, 1962. One of the consequences of such mis-declaration is to extend the period of limitation to 5 years and second consequence is that valuation of the goods can be re-visited by the department. 7.2 We also find both of these consequences have been meted out to the appellant, however, in appeal the department has come out with the proposition that mis-declaration puts onus on the party for all purposes, therefore, even the origin of the country on which no stamping was there had to be proved by the appellant party. We do not agree with this proposition, Once consequences of the mis-declaration have been meted out as statutorily required to the appellants, the onus t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, the remaining 19 cannot be treated as of Taiwanese origin. This is more so, as the consignment has emanated from Dubai which is a 3rd party country. Again department cannot extend the consequences of initial misdeclaration for all purposes including to the Rules of evidence, even when the statute does not provide for it. The scrutiny of the statute does not afford any such scope in favour of the department beyond the listed consequences of extended period of limitation and re-looking at the valuation. The departmental appeal is therefore devoid of merits and order of the Commissioner in the instant case deserves to be upheld.
8. Departmental appeal is rejected.
( Pronounced in the open court on 20. 12. 2024 ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
