Anti-dumping duty classification turns on the actual exporter, and a broker cannot be treated as exporter for the higher rate.

Imported goods were held not liable to the higher anti-dumping duty rate under serial no. 21 because the bill of lading and import documents showed the Chinese manufacturer as the exporter. The Singapore entity was only an indenting agent or broker, so it could not be treated as the actual exporter for duty classification purposes. The authority below erred in applying the higher rate on that basis, and the applicable duty was held to be under serial no. 14. The demand founded on the higher anti-dumping duty rate was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were liable to anti-dumping duty under serial no. 21 instead of serial no. 14 of the relevant notification, on the basis that the supplier in Singapore was the actual exporter.

Analysis: The bill of lading and related import documents showed that the manufacturer in China was the exporter, the goods were shipped from China to India, and the Singapore entity was only an indenting agent or broker in the transaction. On that basis, the authority below erred in treating the Singapore entity as the actual exporter for the purpose of applying the higher anti-dumping duty rate.

Conclusion: The applicable anti-dumping duty was that under serial no. 14, not serial no. 21, and the duty demand based on the higher rate could not be sustained.

---