Anti-dumping notification corrigendum negates physical-shipment requirement for imports, making customs insistence unsustainable.

Physical shipment from the notified country of export could not be insisted upon where the anti-dumping notification, as later corrected by a corrigendum, no longer supported that interpretation. A prior clarification from the Designated Authority had stated that a commercial invoice from the exporter in the notified country would suffice, and the corrigendum operated from the date of the original notification. On that basis, the customs demand for proof of physical shipment was unsustainable, and the impugned orders were quashed in favour of the importers.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importers were required to show physical shipment of the goods from the country of export mentioned in the anti-dumping notification, and whether the subsequent corrigendum to the notification could govern the assessment.

Analysis: The notification originally identified the country of export in a manner that led customs authorities to insist on physical shipment from that country. A clarification issued by the Designated Authority stated that physical shipment was unnecessary and that a commercial invoice from the exporter in the notified country would suffice, but that clarification was not incorporated into a government notification at that stage. The later corrigendum to the anti-dumping notification partially modified the relevant entry and, being a correction to the original notification, operated from the date of the original notification. In view of the corrigendum, the basis for insisting on physical shipment from the stated country of export no longer survived.

Conclusion: The insistence on physical shipment was unsustainable, and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioners.

---