Court overturns Tribunal, imposes Anti-Dumping Duty on Extra Clear Float Glass

The Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal, ruling that Extra Clear Float Glass was liable for Anti-Dumping Duty. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the industry, arguing adverse economic effects. A subsequent notification supported the inclusion of Extra Clear Float Glass in the product under consideration. The Department found the Tribunal's decision illogical and supported the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty. The Court stayed the Tribunal's order, pending the final outcome of the case, affecting the clearance of Extra Clear Float Glass subject to Anti-Dumping Duty.

---

---

Issues:
1. Setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Determining the liability of Extra Clear Float Glass for Anti-Dumping Duty.
3. Prohibiting clearance of Extra Clear Float Glass without levy of Anti-Dumping Duty.

Issue 1: Setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 5.7.2019 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Customs Appeal Nos.399 and 400 of 2011. The Tribunal had allowed the appeals of the assessee company, holding that Extra Clear Float Glass imported by them was not liable for Anti-Dumping Duty. The Tribunal found that the Extra Clear Float Glass and Clear Float Glass were not similar products for the purpose of Anti-Dumping Duty. The petitioner, representing the industry, challenged this decision, claiming it would have adverse economic effects. The Department did not file an appeal against this decision due to low monetary impact, as per instructions issued by the Department of Revenue. The petitioner argued that a subsequent notification recommended that Extra Clear Float Glass should not be excluded from the product under consideration, suggesting that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous.

Issue 2: Determining the liability of Extra Clear Float Glass for Anti-Dumping Duty
After detailed analysis and technical consideration, a notification concluded that Extra Clear Float Glass could not be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. The petitioner relied on this notification to argue that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect and should not be upheld. The Court directed the Department to file an affidavit clarifying its stance on the impact of the Tribunal's decision on the industry's economics. The Department's affidavit stated that the Tribunal's decision appeared vague and illogical, suggesting that Extra Clear Float Glass logically fell under the category of Float Glass and should attract Anti-Dumping Duty.

Issue 3: Prohibiting clearance of Extra Clear Float Glass without levy of Anti-Dumping Duty
The respondent Department cited Section 131BA of The Customs Act, 1962, which regulates the filing of appeals by the Commissioner of Customs. The Department claimed it was unable to file an appeal due to the provisions of this section. However, the Court noted that non-filing of an appeal in one case would not preclude the authority from filing an appeal in another case involving similar issues. As an interim relief, the Court stayed the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal until the final outcome of the Special Civil Application, with the rights and obligations of the parties subject to this stay.

---