Supreme Court: Anti-Dumping Duty ruling on Stainless Steel CR Coils width <1280mm

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the applicability of Anti Dumping Duty on imported Stainless Steel CR Coils with a width less than 1280 mm. The confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties were set aside, as the Director was not personally involved in mis-declaration. The refund claim for Anti Dumping Duty was initially rejected but later approved after re-export. The appeals resulted in setting aside confiscation and penalty, rejecting the refund appeal, and allowing the Director's appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Anti Dumping Duty on imported Stainless Steel CR Coils having width less than 1280 mm.
2. Confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty.
3. Imposition of penalty on the Director of the Appellant.
4. Refund of Anti Dumping Duty paid upon re-export of the goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Anti Dumping Duty:
The issue of Anti Dumping Duty on the imported Stainless Steel CR Coils having width less than 1280 mm is settled by the Supreme Court in favor of the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva Vs. Mascot International – 2017 (352) ELT 3 (SC). Consequently, the Stainless Steel CR Coils of 54.298 MT having width less than 1280 mm are liable to Anti Dumping Duty of Rs. 49,14,756/-. This point was not disputed by the Appellant during the hearing.

2. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant argued that there was no mis-declaration of the goods in the Bill of Entry since the width of the coils was mentioned in the accompanying commercial invoice and packing list. However, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Anti Dumping Duty and directed confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing redemption of the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 4.00 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the goods are liable for confiscation under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, but not under Section 111(d).

The Tribunal found that the confiscation under Section 111(m) by the Commissioner (Appeals) was beyond the scope of the adjudication order and not sustainable. The Notification 14/2010-Cus read with Notification No.86/2011-Cus is directed for levy of Anti-dumping duty and not a post-import conditional exemption Notification. Consequently, the confiscation under Section 111(o) cannot be sustained, and thus, the confiscation of goods and consequent imposition of penalty were set aside.

3. Imposition of Penalty on the Director:
The Tribunal found no evidence of the Director’s personal involvement in the mis-declaration of the width of the coils. The Director signed the relevant import documents in the normal course. Therefore, the imposition of a penalty on him was deemed unwarranted and was set aside.

4. Refund of Anti Dumping Duty:
The appellant re-exported the goods and filed a refund claim for the Anti Dumping Duty paid. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim, stating it should be considered under Section 26A and not under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this finding and directed the appellant to file a fresh application, which was subsequently processed, and the refund was sanctioned.

The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contention that they should not have been required to file a fresh refund claim. The refund became due only after the adjudication of the show-cause notice, and the subsequent filing of the refund claim on 26.11.2018 was appropriate. The approach of the Department in scrutinizing and sanctioning the refund was found to be correct.

Conclusion:
- Appeal No. 89652/2018 filed by the appellant company is partly allowed, setting aside the confiscation and penalty.
- Appeal No. 89464/2018 regarding the refund of Anti Dumping Duty is rejected.
- Appeal No. 89657/2018 filed by the Director is allowed.

Pronounced in court on 11.09.2020.

---