https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465501 Imported goods were held not liable to the higher anti-dumping duty rate under serial no. 21 because the bill of lading and import documents showed the Chinese manufacturer as the exporter. The Singapore entity was only an indenting agent or broker, so it could not be treated as the actual exporter for duty classification purposes. The authority below erred in applying the higher rate on that basis, and the applicable duty was held to be under serial no. 14. The demand founded on the higher anti-dumping duty rate was therefore unsustainable. en-us Thu, 27 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 11:16:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465501 Imported goods were held not liable to the higher anti-dumping duty rate under serial no. 21 because the bill of lading and import documents showed the Chinese manufacturer as the exporter. The Singapore entity was only an indenting agent or broker, so it could not be treated as the actual exporter for duty classification purposes. The authority below erred in applying the higher rate on that basis, and the applicable duty was held to be under serial no. 14. The demand founded on the higher anti-dumping duty rate was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 27 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465501