2015 (10) TMI 93 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns duty reassessment, rules on retroactive duty rates

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The decision emphasized the importance of the date ... Retrospective Imposition of ADD – 3 bills of entries were filed on which provisional Anti-Dumping duty in terms of Notification No. 106/2006-Cus., was levied – As landed value of goods was higher, anti-dumping duty was assessed as zero in each case – Later Notification No. 88/2003 was issued in respect of Anti-Dumping Duty revising reference price from earlier reference price specified in provisional Notification No. 106/2006 – As value of imported goods by appellant was less than reference price, Revenue recalled bills of entries, assessed same imposing anti-dumping duties – Held that:- while dealing with amendments in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 it stands observed that provisions of Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was amended to extend retrospectively machinery provisions of Customs Act, 1962 to anti-dumping duties levied under this section – In view of foregoing, date of presentation of bill of entry is relevant date for purpose of determining applicable rate of duty – Admittedly bills of entry were presented prior to 24-7-2007, when final anti-dumping notification was issued – As applicant has already been assessed to zero anti-dumping duty, court of view that further demand of anti-dumping duty in terms of subsequent notification is not called for – Accordingly, impugned order set aside – Decide in favour of Assesse. Issues:1. Applicability of anti-dumping duty on imported goods.2. Assessment and reassessment of customs duty.3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act and Customs Tariff Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Applicability of anti-dumping duty on imported goodsThe appellant imported goods subject to provisional Anti-Dumping duty as per Notification No. 106/2006-Cus. The landed value of the goods was initially assessed higher than the reference price, resulting in customs duty but zero anti-dumping duty. Subsequently, a final notification revised the reference price, leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duties. The appellant challenged this assessment, arguing that as the assessment was completed before the final anti-dumping notification, it was impermissible to recall and reassess the bills of entries. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this contention, upholding the anti-dumping duty imposition based on the final assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.Issue 2: Assessment and reassessment of customs dutyThe appellant contended that the assessment was finalized before the issuance of the final anti-dumping notification, thus precluding the reassessment based on the new notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) clarified that final assessment is the prerogative of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, emphasizing that duty deposited before final assessment does not equate to duty collected by the Revenue. The appellant's plea was dismissed, and the anti-dumping duty was confirmed based on the subsequent notification's provisions.Issue 3: Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act and Customs Tariff ActThe Tribunal analyzed the retrospective amendment of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, which made the provisions of the Customs Act applicable to anti-dumping duties. The amendment clarified that the date of presentation of the bill of entry is crucial for determining the applicable rate of duty. As the bills of entry were presented before the final anti-dumping notification, the Tribunal held that the subsequent notification's provisions did not apply to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the retrospective application of relevant provisions, emphasizing the significance of the bill of entry presentation date in determining duty rates. The judgment provided clarity on the assessment and applicability of anti-dumping duties, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the specific timeline of events and legal provisions.