Importer denied anti-dumping duty exemption on reflective glass due to notification omission during specific period

The CESTAT Bangalore dismissed the importer's appeal seeking exemption from anti-dumping duty on reflective glass during 06.01.2009 to 22.05.2009. While earlier and subsequent notifications excluded reflective glass from anti-dumping duty, Notification No.4/2009-Cus dated 06.01.2009 did not contain this exclusion. The tribunal held that customs authorities cannot rectify omissions in notifications as they are issued based on DGAD findings. Following SC precedent in State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal, each assessment period is distinct and exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly per their plain language. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Leviability of anti-dumping duty on "Dark Green Reflective Float Glass" imported by the appellant.
2. Interpretation of exemption notifications and their applicability to the imported goods.

Summary:

Issue 1: Leviability of Anti-Dumping Duty

The appellant, M/s. Glass House, filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of "Dark Green Reflective Float Glass" imported from China. The original authority confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 1,50,649/- along with interest under Section 18(3) of the Customs Act 1962, based on Notification No.4/2009 Cus. dated 06.01.2009. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting that while Notification No. 165/2003-Cus. dated 12.11.2003 excluded Reflective Glass from anti-dumping duty, Notification No.4/2009 did not.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Exemption Notifications

The appellant argued that the omission of Reflective Glass from Notification No.4/2009 was inadvertent, as it was excluded in both prior and subsequent notifications (No. 165/2003 and No. 51/2009 respectively). They contended that the Customs Authorities should not impose anti-dumping duty on Reflective Glass as it was not approved by the Director-General of Anti-dumping (DGAD). The Revenue countered that the levy was justified as per the existing notification at the time of import.

The Tribunal examined the relevant notifications and found that Notification No.4/2009-Cus. dated 06.01.2009 did not exclude Reflective Glass from anti-dumping duty. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Dilip Kumar, the Tribunal emphasized that exemption notifications should be interpreted strictly, and any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the revenue. The Tribunal concluded that since Reflective Glass was not exempted in Notification No.4/2009, the benefit of exemption could not be extended.

Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, affirming the leviability of anti-dumping duty on the imported Reflective Glass.

The appeal was dismissed.

(Order pronounced in open court 20/11/2023.)

---