Anti-dumping duty and new shipper review: imports found not dumped, so pre-deposit waiver and recovery stay were justified.

Anti-dumping duty on imports from M/s. Nanhai was treated as not prima facie leviable for the review period because the new shipper review found exports above normal value and the amending notification inserted a proviso stating that no anti-dumping duty shall be imposed on such imports. On that basis, the levy under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 could not, at the prima facie stage, survive against goods found not to have been dumped, even though the amendment operated from its effective date. The earlier Tribunal ruling cited by Revenue was distinguished as involving a different issue, and waiver of pre-deposit with stay of recovery was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether anti-dumping duty was prima facie leviable on imports from M/s. Nanhai during the review period and whether pre-deposit and recovery of the duty demanded thereon were liable to be stayed.

Analysis: The imports in dispute fell within the period examined by the designated authority in the new shipper review. The review findings concluded that exports by M/s. Nanhai during the relevant period were above normal value, and the subsequent amendment to the anti-dumping notification inserted an express proviso that no anti-dumping duty shall be imposed on such imports. In that situation, the levy under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 could not, prima facie, survive against goods found not to be dumped, notwithstanding the effective date of the amending notification. The earlier Tribunal decision relied on by the Revenue was distinguished as relating to a different question.

Conclusion: Anti-dumping duty was not prima facie payable on the imports from M/s. Nanhai for the relevant period, and waiver of pre-deposit together with stay of recovery was justified in favour of the assessee.

---