Classification of finished FRP rods under the correct tariff entry defeated anti-dumping duty based on the wrong heading.

FRP rods were held classifiable under CTH 70022090 because the imported goods were finished FRP rods, not glass fibre raw material. CTH 7019 covers glass fibres and articles thereof, while CTH 7002 covers glass in balls, rods or tubes unworked; the broader entry could not be used to reclassify the finished product. As the anti-dumping notification applied only to goods falling under CTH 70199090, the associated duty demand could not be sustained. The classification under CTH 70199090 was therefore rejected and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether FRP rods were correctly classifiable under CTH 70022090, or under CTH 70199090 so as to attract anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 30/2011-CUS (ADD) dated 04.03.2011.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly FRP rods. CTH 7019 covers glass fibres and articles thereof, whereas CTH 7002 covers glass in balls, rods or tubes unworked. The product imported by the appellant was the finished FRP rod and not glass fibre as raw material. On that basis, the goods fell within CTH 70022090 and could not be brought under CTH 70199090. Since the anti-dumping notification applied only to goods classifiable under 70199090, the duty demand could not survive.

Conclusion: The classification under CTH 70199090 was unsustainable and the FRP rods were classifiable under CTH 70022090. The anti-dumping duty was not applicable, and the appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tariff entry for the disputed goods specifically covers the finished product, the goods cannot be classified under a broader entry meant for the raw material, and an anti-dumping levy tied to the incorrect entry cannot be sustained.

---