Anti-dumping duty demand fails where imported goods are not shown by evidence to fall within the notified grade.

Anti-dumping duty on imported mulberry raw silk could not be sustained because the revenue did not establish, by testing, sampling, or other acceptable evidence, that the goods were 2A grade or below and therefore covered by the notification. The demand had been raised after clearance of the goods, when no sample-based ascertainment was available, and liability could not rest on mere presumption. The order setting aside the duty demand was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether anti-dumping duty could be sustained on imported mulberry raw silk without testing or other acceptable evidence to establish that the goods were of 2A grade or below and thus liable to duty under the notification.

Analysis: Liability to anti-dumping duty depended on proof that the imported goods fell within the grade covered by the notification. The goods had already been cleared and could not be tested, and the demand was raised without any sample-based ascertainment or other acceptable evidence to show that the consignment was 2A grade or below. A demand founded only on presumption could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand of anti-dumping duty was not sustainable, and the order setting it aside was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the revenue could not establish, on evidence, that the imported goods were liable to anti-dumping duty under the applicable notification.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand of anti-dumping duty cannot be sustained unless the goods are shown by evidence to fall within the class covered by the notification; liability cannot rest on mere presumption.

---