Anti-dumping duty rate depends on the named exporter; residuary rate applies when the actual exporter is different.

The lower anti-dumping duty rate applied only where the exporter was the specific entity named in the notification; the residuary rate governed imports from any other exporter. As the exporter for the consignment was not the notified exporter, the Tribunal held that the residuary entry applied and the importer was not entitled to the lower notified rate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer was entitled to the lower anti-dumping duty rate applicable to the exporter named in the notification, or whether the residuary rate applied because the actual exporter was not the notified exporter.

Analysis: The notification prescribed different anti-dumping duty rates for specified exporters of metcoke from China and a higher residuary rate for all other exporters. The importer relied on materials suggesting that the named exporter in the notification did not correspond to the actual exporting entity. The Tribunal held that the lower rate could be applied only when the exporter was the exporter specifically named in the notification. Since the exporter in the present consignment was not the notified exporter, the residuary entry governed the import.

Conclusion: The residuary anti-dumping duty rate was correctly applied and the importer was not entitled to the lower notified rate.

---