False country-of-origin claims must be proved by reliable evidence before anti-dumping duty exemption can be accepted.

Imported Vitamin C was found to have a false country-of-origin declaration, because the importer and foreign supplier failed to substantiate the asserted United States origin with reliable evidence. Verification showed the supporting Form 9 and related documents were unreliable, and the stated manufacturing premises did not exist as a manufacturing unit. Correspondence also suggested an attempt to misdescribe Chinese goods as United States-origin goods to avoid anti-dumping duty. On these facts, adverse inference was justified, the claim of United States origin was rejected, and the levy of anti-dumping duty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported Vitamin C was wrongly declared as having United States origin and was therefore liable to anti-dumping duty as goods of Chinese origin.

Analysis: The declaration of origin was made by the foreign supplier and the importer, and they were required to substantiate it. The supporting Form 9 and other documents were found unreliable on verification, as the stated manufacturing premises did not exist as a manufacturing unit. The surrounding correspondence also indicated a possible attempt to misdescribe Chinese goods as United States-origin goods to avoid anti-dumping duty. In these circumstances, the claimed origin was held to be false, and the adverse inference against the importer and supplier was justified.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of Revenue. The goods were treated as not having United States origin and the challenge to levy of anti-dumping duty failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the importer and foreign supplier assert a country of origin to claim exemption from anti-dumping duty, the assertion must be proved by reliable evidence, and false or unverifiable origin documents justify treating the claim as untrue and drawing an adverse inference.

---