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>Imported goods classified as porcelain tiles, not marble, due to certification, leading to anti-dumping duty. Upheld decision.</h1> <h3>ADARSH REALTY & HOTELS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., BANGALORE</h3> ADARSH REALTY & HOTELS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., BANGALORE - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 369 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:Classification of imported goods as vitrified tiles or marble tiles; Mis-declaration leading to anti-dumping duty imposition; Validity of China Compulsory Product Certification in determining classification.Classification of imported goods:The appellants imported goods declared as 'Bottichino Marble Tiles,' which upon examination were found to have a surface layer of artificial marble and a bottom layer of vitrified tiles. The essential characteristics pointed towards classification as vitrified tiles under CTH No. 6907.10.10. The goods, being of Chinese origin, attracted anti-dumping duty. The Adjudicating Authority classified the goods as vitrified tiles and imposed anti-dumping duty, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. The appellants contended that the top layer being artificial marble should classify the goods as marble tiles, not attracting anti-dumping duty.Mis-declaration and anti-dumping duty:The departmental representative referred to Notification No. 73/2003-Cus., imposing anti-dumping duty on vitrified and porcelain tiles from China and UAE. The representative highlighted a China Compulsory Product Certification for 'Porcelain tiles,' indicating the goods' classification and liability for anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal found the impugned goods to be porcelain tiles based on the certificate, rejecting the appellants' argument against the certificate's validity in determining classification. The mis-declaration of the goods as marble tiles was evident, justifying the imposition of anti-dumping duty.Validity of China Compulsory Product Certification:The Tribunal concluded that the impugned goods were correctly classified as porcelain tiles, not marble tiles, based on the China Compulsory Product Certification specifying the product as 'Porcelain Tiles.' The appellants' objection to the certificate's relevance for classification was dismissed, emphasizing the clear mis-declaration leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duty. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order based on the certificate's explicit classification of the goods as porcelain tiles.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of classification, mis-declaration, and the significance of the China Compulsory Product Certification in determining the liability for anti-dumping duty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
