TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c Staple fibre from Taiwan; that the country of origin was declared as Taiwan as mentioned in the Bills of Entry and port of lading, was declared as Keelung; that the goods were accordingly assessed to duty as of Taiwan origin and was cleared on payment of appropriate duty; that subsequently as a result of search of the premises of the Shipping line M/s. Tata and NYK Transport Ltd. on 3-2-99 certain documents were resumed by the officers which showed that the country of origin as Thailand and not Taiwan; that in terms of Notification No. 81/97-Cus., dated 24-10-97, anti-dumping duty at the rate of Rs. 9.73 per Kg. was leviable on import of acrylic fibre of Thailand origin; that during investigation stage itself duty amounting to Rs. 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d been made at the time of personal hearing. 3. Learned Advocate submitted that both the Appellants are not pressing their Appeals regarding application of rate of anti-dumping duty; that, however, for the purpose of levying Additional Duty of Customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, the anti-dumping duty is not required to be included in the assessable value; that this has already been clarified by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in the instructions issued in the wake of Budget 2002; that it has been clarified by the Board therein that "for computing the CVD, only the value of the imported article as determined under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 including the landing charges, if any, and the basic Customs dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p;Countering the argument Shri O.P. Arora, learned Senior Departmental Representative, reiterated the finding as contained in the impugned order and emphasised that as no submissions had been made by the Appellants regarding the value of the goods before the Adjudicating Authority, the valuation as adopted by the Department was confirmed by the Commissioner. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. As the learned Advocate for both the appellants has not pressed the appeals regarding rate of anti-dumping duty applied by the Commissioner under the impugned order for charging the anti-dumping duty, the order is upheld to that extent. Regarding addition of anti-dumping duty in the assessable value of the goods for the purp....