2009 (6) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and cleared them duty free by producing advance licence. Anti-dumping duty is leviable on import of acrylic fibre falling under sub-heading No. 5501.30 or 5503.30, in terms of Notification No. 133/2001-Customs, dated 31-12-2001. The original authority while dealing with the refund claim, held that the acrylic tow imported by the respondent has to be considered as acrylic fibre and therefore, the same attracts anti-dumping duty, in terms of Notification No. 133/2001-Cus., cited supra. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the acrylic fibre and acrylic tow are different goods and that anti-dumping duty was chargeable only on acrylic fibre and not on acrylic tow and accordingly, set aside the order of the original autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able on acrylic tow i.e. the goods imported by the appellant. This view has also been confirmed by the CESTAT in the case of Beeta Exports v. C.C.ASR, 2003 (153) E.L.T. 621 whereas it has been held that 'Acrylic fibre and Acrylic tow are different goods. The learned Adjudicating authority erred in not appreciating said factual position. He has not given any findings with regards to the said submission of the appellant.' The above contention of the appellant is quite correct and convincing in as much as the 'acrylic fibre and acrylic two are two different goods and the anti-dumping duty is chargeable only on acrylic fibre and not on acrylic tow'. The further contention of the appellant that the duty in question was got deposited by the....