2001 (4) TMI 271 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants on anti-dumping duty for imported goods

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the imported goods were not subject to anti-dumping duty as they were not classified as ... Anti dumping duty - classification of imported goods - Styrene Butadiene Rubber - chemical examination and conformity to chapter notes - application of designated authority's final order - classification under Chapter 39/Chapter 40Anti dumping duty - Styrene Butadiene Rubber - classification under Chapter 39/Chapter 40 - chemical examination and conformity to chapter notes - Whether the imported Styrene Butadiene Copolymer Resin Kosyn KHS 68 is liable to anti dumping duty as Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR). - HELD THAT: - The designated authority's Final Order had recommended anti dumping duty on specified grades of SBR and this Tribunal had directed that duty is leviable on all grades of SBR, whether classifiable under sub-heading 4002 or 3903. That direction, however, did not relieve the Customs authorities of the duty to determine whether the imported material in any particular consignment is in fact SBR. The goods here were subjected to chemical examination and expert reports recorded that the sample was a Styrene Butadiene Synthetic Resin and did not conform to the tests/notes applicable to synthetic rubber under Chapter 40 (Note 4(a)/Note 4002.19). The adjudicating authority itself found that the material did not fall under Chapter Heading 40.02 as it failed the prescribed tests. The appellate authority's conclusion that the product was SBR of the 1900 series was unsupported by material or analysis. On the basis of the chemical reports and the finding that the goods do not satisfy the statutory tests for synthetic rubber, the Tribunal held that the consignments are not SBR and therefore not within the scope of the anti dumping levy imposed on SBR. [Paras 3, 4, 5, 6]Goods imported as Styrene Butadiene Copolymer Resin Kosyn KHS 68 are not Styrene Butadiene Rubber and therefore anti dumping duty cannot be levied on the three consignments; impugned levies set aside and goods to be released.Final Conclusion: Appeals allowed: anti dumping duty levied on the three consignments set aside because chemical evidence and findings establish that the imported material is not Styrene Butadiene Rubber; authorities directed to release the goods without levy. Issues:1. Whether goods imported by the appellants call for anti-dumping duty.Analysis:1. The dispute in this case revolves around the classification of goods imported from Korea as 'Styrene Butadiene Copolymer Resin Kosyn KHS 68' and whether they are subject to anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 73/2000. The Customs authorities contended that the goods fall under sub-heading 3903 and are liable for anti-dumping duty, while the importer argued that since the goods were not Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR), no duty should be imposed. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs upheld the duty imposition, which was further affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).2. The designated authority under the anti-dumping law recommended duty on specific grades of Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) from various countries, including Korea. The Tribunal had previously ruled that anti-dumping duty is applicable to all grades of SBR, regardless of their classification under sub-heading 4002 or 3903. Based on this ruling, the Customs authorities believed that the imported goods fell under sub-heading 3903 and thus attracted duty.3. The inquiry into whether the imported goods, Styrene Butadiene Copolymer Resin Kosyn KHS 68, should be subject to the anti-dumping duty on SBR was addressed by the designated authority in a previous order. The authority noted that the goods did not fall under the nomenclature of 'Synthetic Rubber' and did not justify imposing duty under sub-heading 3903. The Tribunal reiterated that duty applies to all types of SBR, emphasizing the correct classification by Customs authorities.4. Chemical examinations confirmed that the imported goods were Styrene Butadiene Synthetic Resin and did not meet the criteria for synthetic rubber under Chapter 40. The reports indicated no connection to Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) subject to the anti-dumping investigation, further supporting the argument against duty imposition.5. The adjudicating authority and the appellate authority differed in their classification of the imported goods. While the former accepted that the goods were not synthetic rubber and imposed duty based on the Tribunal's previous ruling, the latter concluded that the product was Styrene Butadiene Co-polymer, akin to SBR. However, the appellate authority's basis for this conclusion lacked substantial evidence, leading to the decision that the goods were not subject to duty.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the imported goods were not Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) as targeted by the anti-dumping duty. Consequently, the imposition of duty on the goods covered by the bills of entry was deemed unjustified, and the authorities were directed to release the goods without levying anti-dumping duty.7. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, setting aside the anti-dumping duty imposed on the imported goods and instructing the authorities to release the consignments without duty.