Anti-dumping duty upheld on reflective glass as exemption notification excluded green variant during disputed period

CESTAT Bangalore dismissed an appeal regarding anti-dumping duty on reflective glass for the period 04/01/2009 to 22/05/2009. The appellant claimed exemption under N/N. 4/2009-Cus dated 06/01/2009, but the Tribunal found that green reflective glass was not mentioned in the exclusion category of this notification, only being included later in amending N/N. 51/2009-Cus dated 22/05/2009. Following SC precedents in Dilip Kumar and Company and State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal cases, the Tribunal held that notifications must be interpreted based on plain language without inferring unstated meanings. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld, confirming anti-dumping duty liability for the intervening period.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of anti-dumping duty on Dark Green Reflective Glass.
2. Interpretation of Notifications No. 165/2003-Cus., 4/2009-Cus., and 51/2009-Cus.
3. Retrospective application of subsequent notifications.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dark Green Reflective Glass
The appellant, a proprietary concern trading in Reflective Glass, imported Dark Green Reflective Glass from China and was levied anti-dumping duty by the Department. The appellant contested the levy, arguing that the goods fall outside the scope of anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeals.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Notifications No. 165/2003-Cus., 4/2009-Cus., and 51/2009-Cus.
The appellant argued that Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. should be read in light of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and relevant rules, asserting that the notification could only extend the period of imposition and not widen the scope of the original proceedings. They contended that the exclusion of reflective glass in Notification No. 165/2003-Cus. should continue, and the omission in Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. was a mistake. The Department, however, maintained that the anti-dumping duty was correctly levied as reflective glass was not excluded in Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. The Tribunal upheld the Department's stance, referencing the Bangalore Bench's interpretation and the Supreme Court's principles in the case of Dilip Kumar and Company, emphasizing that the plain language of the notification must be followed.

Issue 3: Retrospective Application of Subsequent Notifications
The appellant cited the judgment in Fibre Foils Limited, arguing that subsequent amendments clarifying existing provisions should apply retrospectively. They claimed Notification No. 51/2009-Cus., which excluded reflective glass from anti-dumping duty, should apply retrospectively to cover the period of Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. The Tribunal, however, upheld that the exclusion in Notification No. 51/2009-Cus. does not apply retrospectively, as reflective glass was not excluded in Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. during the period in question.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, confirming the levy of anti-dumping duty on Dark Green Reflective Glass for the period from 06/01/2009 to 22/05/2009, and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. The judgment emphasized strict adherence to the language of the notifications and rejected the retrospective application of subsequent amendments.

(Order pronounced in Open Court on 15. 04. 2024)

---