2017 (8) TMI 875 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal rectifies errors in Final Order on anti-dumping duty refund claims

Commissioner of Customs (Icd Tkd), New Delhi Versus S.R. Polyvinyl Ltd.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI rectified errors in the Final Order related to entitlement of refund claims involving anti-dumping duty. The ... Rectification of Mistake - The plea of the applicant is that three Member Bench deciding on ADD has clearly ordered for the continuation of AD duty at the rate as applicable on the date preceding the issue of N/N. 70/2010. Whereas in the impugned order it was mentioned as levy and collection of AD duty at the rates prescribed in N/N. 70/2010-Cus - Held that: - it is clear that continued levy of AD duty at the rate applicable on the date preceding the issue of N/N. 70/2010, dated 25-6-2010 was ordered by the said Bench. The ruling of the said ADD Bench was only followed in the impugned order. However, the wordings has given a different meaning. Accordingly, we correct the errors in the impugned order - ROM application allowed. Issues:Rectification of error apparent from record in the Final Order regarding entitlement of refund claims involving anti-dumping duty.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI addressed the issue of rectification of errors in the Final Order related to the entitlement of two refund claims filed by the appellant, which also involved anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal observed that the three Member Anti-Dumping Bench set aside Customs Notification No. 70/2010 and the amending Notification 8/2012, remanding the matter to the Designated Authority for a fresh decision. Despite this, the anti-dumping duty was ordered to be continued at the rate applicable before the issuance of Notification 70/2010. The Tribunal reproduced the relevant part of the Special Bench order on anti-dumping duty. In the impugned final order, the Tribunal recorded the levy and collection of anti-dumping duty at the rates prescribed in Notification 70/2010-Cus, provisionally for a further six months from the date of the order. However, the applicant contended that the three Member Bench had clearly ordered the continuation of anti-dumping duty at the rate preceding the issuance of Notification 70/2010, which was not reflected accurately in the impugned order.Continuing the analysis, the Tribunal reviewed the findings of the Anti-Dumping Duty Bench of the Tribunal and noted that the continued levy of anti-dumping duty at the rate applicable before the issuance of Notification 70/2010 was ordered by the said Bench. The Tribunal acknowledged that the ruling of the Anti-Dumping Duty Bench was only followed in the impugned order but recognized that the wording of the order conveyed a different meaning. Consequently, the errors in the impugned order were corrected by substituting specific phrases in paragraphs 6 and 7, clarifying that the anti-dumping duty should be applied at the rate applicable on the day preceding the issue of Notification 70/2010. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision on the claims filed by the appellant. Both miscellaneous applications filed by the appellant were allowed, leading to the rectification of the errors in the order.