Anti-dumping duty and width tolerance: review notification covered imports above 1250 mm, but re-exported goods attracted no liability.

The SC held that anti-dumping duty applied to imported stainless steel flat products measuring between 1251 mm and 1280 mm because the review notification introduced width tolerance that had to be read into the levy, bringing those imports within its scope. It also held that no anti-dumping duty was payable on goods that were not cleared for home consumption and were re-exported, since no duty liability arose absent clearance into the domestic stream. The duty demand was therefore sustained for the width-tolerance imports and rejected for the re-exported consignments.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anti-dumping duty was leviable on imported stainless steel flat products having width between 1251 mm and 1280 mm in view of the original notification and the subsequent review notification; (ii) Whether anti-dumping duty could be demanded where the imported goods were not cleared and were re-exported.

Issue (i): Whether anti-dumping duty was leviable on imported stainless steel flat products having width between 1251 mm and 1280 mm in view of the original notification and the subsequent review notification.

Analysis: The original notification imposed anti-dumping duty on cold-rolled flat products of stainless steel up to 1250 mm width. The subsequent review notification introduced width tolerance for specified products, and that tolerance had to be read into the levy. On that basis, products falling within the tolerance range beyond 1250 mm were covered by the notification.

Conclusion: Anti-dumping duty was leviable on imports of width between 1251 mm and 1280 mm, and the challenge to the demand failed.

Issue (ii): Whether anti-dumping duty could be demanded where the imported goods were not cleared and were re-exported.

Analysis: Since the goods were not cleared for home consumption and had been re-exported, no duty liability arose on those imports. The levy could not be sustained in the absence of clearance of the goods into the domestic stream.

Conclusion: No anti-dumping duty was payable in respect of the re-exported goods, and the demand was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of on mixed findings, with the duty demand sustained in one set of appeals and rejected in the other set on the distinct ground of re-export.

Ratio Decidendi: A review notification introducing width tolerance into an anti-dumping regime must be applied according to its terms, and no anti-dumping duty can be demanded where the imported goods are not cleared and are re-exported.

---