Strict construction of anti-dumping notifications prevented duty on clear float glass below the notified thickness range.
Clear float glass imported as 3.8 mm thickness, with measured thickness between 3.73 mm and 3.86 mm, was held not to fall within the anti-dumping duty notification covering goods of 4 mm to 12 mm. The notification was construed strictly, and BIS tolerance could not be selectively applied to enlarge duty liability where the actual goods remained below the notified range. The extended period of limitation was also found unavailable because the goods were duly declared in the bills of entry, examined by customs, and cleared without any misdeclaration, suppression, or wilful misstatement. The anti-dumping duty demand was accordingly set aside.
Issues: (i) Whether clear float glass imported as 3.8 mm thickness, having measured thickness between 3.73 mm and 3.86 mm, attracted anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 48/2014-Customs (ADD) dated 11th December 2014 by applying the tolerance prescribed under BIS 14900:2000; (ii) Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue (i): Whether clear float glass imported as 3.8 mm thickness, having measured thickness between 3.73 mm and 3.86 mm, attracted anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 48/2014-Customs (ADD) dated 11th December 2014 by applying the tolerance prescribed under BIS 14900:2000.
Analysis: The imported goods were found to be within the declared thickness range of 3.8 mm, and the recorded measurements were below 4 mm. The demand was based on adding the tolerance to the declared thickness so as to place the goods within the 4 mm to 12 mm range covered by the notification. The reasoning rejected this approach and held that the notification must be construed strictly. It was also noted that nominal thickness had not been defined in BIS in the manner suggested by the department and that tolerance could not be applied selectively only to enhance duty liability.
Conclusion: The goods did not fall within the ambit of anti-dumping duty under the notification, and the demand was unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The goods had been declared in the bills of entry, examined by customs officers, and cleared accordingly. In the absence of misdeclaration, suppression, or wilful misstatement, the foundation for invoking the extended period was not made out.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable.
Final Conclusion: The demand of anti-dumping duty was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A duty exemption or levy notification must be applied strictly according to its terms, and tolerance parameters cannot be selectively used to enlarge the charging scope where the goods, on actual examination, do not answer the description attracting duty.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
