Strict construction of anti-dumping notifications excludes acrylic tow from duty where the levy covered only acrylic fibre.

Anti-dumping duty notifications must be construed strictly and cannot be extended by implication to goods not expressly covered. Because Notification No. 133/2001-Customs referred to acrylic fibre, and the tariff structure treated acrylic tow and acrylic fibre as distinct goods under different headings, acrylic tow imported under sub-heading 5501.30 was outside the levy. The duty was therefore not chargeable on acrylic tow, the assessee's position was upheld, and the Department's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether anti-dumping duty imposed under Notification No. 133/2001-Customs applied to acrylic tow imported under sub-heading 5501.30, or whether the levy was confined to acrylic fibre under the notification.

Analysis: Anti-dumping duty under Section 9A(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is a levy created by notification on the basis of the designated authority's findings and cannot be extended by implication. The notification referred to acrylic fibre, and the tariff structure itself treated acrylic tow under heading 5501 and acrylic fibre under heading 5503 as distinct goods. The mere reference to both sub-heading numbers in the notification did not make acrylic tow dutiable when the levy, on its terms, was directed only at acrylic fibre.

Conclusion: Anti-dumping duty was not chargeable on acrylic tow, and the assessee's position was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The Department's challenge failed and the order setting aside the levy on acrylic tow was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification imposing anti-dumping duty must be construed strictly and cannot be extended by implication to goods not expressly covered by the levy.

---