TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Anti-Dumping Duty Rate, Excludes from Assessable Value</h1> <h3>SHIVALAYA TRADING CORPN. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI</h3> SHIVALAYA TRADING CORPN. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 199 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Redetermination of anti-dumping duty payable on imported goods.2. Inclusion of anti-dumping duty in the assessable value for levying additional duty of Customs.3. Compliance with directions of the Appellate Tribunal regarding valuation of goods.4. Consideration of submissions made by the Appellants regarding the value of goods.Issue 1: Redetermination of anti-dumping duty:The case involved two appeals arising from a common Order-in-Original where the Commissioner Customs redetermined the anti-dumping duty payable by both Appellants. The Appellants had imported Acrylic Staple fibre from Taiwan, but documents seized during a search indicated Thailand as the country of origin. The Commissioner confirmed the duty amounts against the Appellants, leading to subsequent appeals. The Tribunal had earlier set aside penalties imposed and remanded the matter for recalculating the duty amount based on the prevailing anti-dumping duty rate. The Commissioner's order upheld the initial duty rate application, leading to the appeal on this issue.Issue 2: Inclusion of anti-dumping duty in assessable value:The Appellants argued that for levying Additional Duty of Customs, the anti-dumping duty should not be included in the assessable value, citing instructions from the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Tribunal concurred, stating that anti-dumping duty should not be considered in the assessable value for levying additional duty of Customs. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the valuation of the goods, emphasizing that earlier submissions by the Appellants should be taken into account despite no new submissions during the hearing.Issue 3: Compliance with Tribunal's directions on valuation:The Appellants contended that the Department had not complied with the Tribunal's directions to consider the goods' actual origin (Thailand) for duty calculation instead of the declared origin (Taiwan). The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Adjudicating Authority to address this aspect and directed the Appellants to provide proper submissions on valuation within a specified timeframe.Issue 4: Consideration of Appellants' submissions on goods' value:During the proceedings, the Appellants did not press their appeals on the rate of anti-dumping duty. However, they argued that the duty should be charged based on the goods' actual origin and value, which had been previously raised and directed by the Tribunal. The Department maintained its valuation stance, highlighting the lack of submissions by the Appellants on the goods' value before the Adjudicating Authority.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order regarding the rate of anti-dumping duty but directed the exclusion of anti-dumping duty from the assessable value for levying additional duty of Customs. The matter was remanded for the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the valuation of the goods based on earlier submissions by the Appellants, emphasizing compliance with the Tribunal's directions and the need for proper submissions within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 