Importer wins concessional anti-dumping duty rate despite supplier name discrepancy on PVC Resin bags versus documents

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed appellant's claim for concessional anti-dumping duty rate on PVC Resin SG 5 imported from China. Despite discrepancy between supplier name on import documents (CNSG Jilantai Salt Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd) and bags (CNSG Jilantai Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd - missing "Salt"), tribunal accepted documentary evidence including invoice, packing list, and certificate of origin over packaging inconsistencies. Following precedent in Vinayak Trading case with identical circumstances, CESTAT held documentary evidence takes precedence over assumptions based on packaging variations.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against demand of anti-dumping duty based on discrepancy in manufacturer's name on goods imported from China.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the demand of anti-dumping duty on PVC Resin SG 5 imported from China. The appellant claimed the goods were manufactured by "CNSG Jilantai Salt Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd," while the bags bore the name "CNSG Jilantai Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd." The dispute centered on the absence of the word "salt" in the latter name, leading to the denial of duty exemption under Notification No. 32/2019-Custom (ADD).

The Tribunal considered a similar case involving M/s. Vinayak Trading, where the manufacturer's name discrepancy was resolved in favor of the importer based on documentary evidence. In the Vinayak Trading case, various documents, such as the commercial invoice, packing list, certificate of origin, and transportation records, confirmed the manufacturer as "Alkali Company Ltd." despite variations in names. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence over assumptions derived from packaging discrepancies.

The Tribunal noted that the relevant notification specified different duty rates based on the manufacturer, with "Alkali Company Ltd." listed under a lower rate. Despite an unsigned certificate presented by the appellant, the overwhelming documentary evidence supported the manufacturer's identity. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of incriminating evidence against the manufacturer and criticized the Customs Department for demanding differential duty without sufficient grounds.

In light of the precedent set by the Vinayak Trading case and the compelling documentary evidence presented in the current appeal, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals. The decision was based on the principle that documentary evidence should take precedence over mere assumptions or suspicions arising from packaging discrepancies.

---