Anti-dumping duty on unmarked goods requires proof of origin; presumption cannot replace evidence for specific levy.

Anti-dumping duty could not be levied on 19 unmarked pallets where the department failed to prove Taiwanese origin. The consignment contained pallets marked as Taiwanese, Japanese, and others with no origin marking, but the notification applied only to specified countries and duty had already been sustained only where origin was affirmatively shown. Mis-declaration elsewhere in the consignment did not justify extending a presumption of dutiable origin to the unmarked pallets. The asserting party had to establish the factual basis for levy, and similarity in grade or thickness was insufficient to prove Taiwanese origin.

---

---

Issues: Whether anti-dumping duty could be confirmed on the 19 pallets that bore no country-of-origin marking on the basis of a presumption that they were of Taiwanese origin.

Analysis: The imported consignment contained a mix of pallets, some expressly marked as Taiwanese origin, some marked as Japanese origin, and the remaining pallets without any origin marking. The statutory anti-dumping notification applied only to specified countries, and the adjudicating authority had already sustained duty only where origin was affirmatively shown. Once the consequences of mis-declaration were already visited in accordance with the Customs Act, the department could not extend that mis-declaration into a further presumption on origin for all unmarked pallets. The party making the allegation had to prove it, and the record did not justify treating unmarked sheets as Taiwanese merely because they were similar in grade or thickness to marked sheets.

Conclusion: The department failed to establish that the 19 unmarked pallets were of Taiwanese origin, so anti-dumping duty was not leviable on them.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge to the dropping of anti-dumping duty on the unmarked pallets failed, and the adjudicating authority's view was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A presumption of dutiable origin cannot be drawn against an importer for unmarked goods merely because mis-declaration was found elsewhere in the consignment; the asserting party must prove the specific factual basis for levy, and statutory consequences of mis-declaration cannot be expanded beyond their express scope.

---