Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (2) TMI 622

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al and upholding the Assessment Order dated 6.12.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorised representative and perused the records. 2. The appellant claims to manufacture air conditioning systems for automobiles and for this purpose imported Aluminium Alloy coils and filed two Bills of Entry dated 16.11.2017 to clear the imported goods through with Inland Container Depot Patparganj, New Delhi. The appellant did not include anti-dumping duty on the imported goods while self assessing duty. On a query raised by the assessing officer, the appellant took the stand that no anti-dumping duty as per Notification No. 23/2017-Cus (ADD) dated 16.5.2017 as alleged by the department, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tible non-clad Aluminium Foil: Clad with compatible non clad Aluminium Foil is a corrosion-resistant aluminium sheet formed from aluminium surface layers metallurgically bonded to high-strength aluminium alloy core material for use in engine cooling and air conditioner systems in automotive industry; such as radiator, condenser, evaporator, intercooler, oil cooler and heater." 4. It is undisputed that if the disputed goods are covered by this clause, no anti-dumping duty is leviable on the goods. The dispute in this case is only whether the goods are covered by this clause or not. According to the appellant they are covered by this clause and according to the Revenue they are not. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted as follows ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed in heat exchangers used specifically only in radiators in vehicles and engines in cooling systems. This is excluded by petitioner. 6. Further, Para 79 clearly mention that the following is excluded from the scope of PUC. Aluminium- Manganese- Silicon based and/or clad Aluminium- Manganese- Silicon based alloys, whether clad or unclad: with post brazing yield strength greater than 35 MPA, falling under tariff heading 7607 for use in heat exchangers including radiators, charge air coolers, condensers, oil coolers, heater cores, evaporators, heat ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and parts thereof." c) The High Court of Bombay examined this matter in Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India [(2022) 1 Cent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stitution of India ordering and directing the respondents by themselves, their officers, subordinates, servants and agents to forthwith grant refund of Anti-dumping Duty paid by the petitioner under protest on import of unclad/non-clad aluminium foil from China PR in terms of Notification No. 23/2017-Cus. (ADD), dated 16.5.2017 during the period from August 2017 to December 2018." d) Thus, not only has the DG clarified that unclad Aluminium foils were covered by the exclusion in clause (vii) of the Notification but the High Court of Bombay has also, after considering the issue including the clarification provided by the DG, held that no Anti-Dumping Duty is leviable on the disputed goods. e) Further, when the appellant imported the good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terference. 7. We have considered the submissions. The disputed goods were described as "Aluminium alloy coils‟ and there is no dispute that these were not clad. Non-clad or unclad aluminium coils are exempted from the Anti-Dumping Duty notification as per clause (vii) as per the clarification provided by the DG in his letter which was as follows: "5. The aforesaid exclusion was granted as the domestic industry had admitted that it could not produce the above products, namely i) clad aluminium; and ii) compatible unclad aluminium. This is also recorded in the final findings at several places, extracts of which are given below: ii. Exclusion accepted by the domestic industry: c. Clad with Non Clad Aluminium- "Aluminium - Manganes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y foils. The goods imported through Gandhinagar were described as Aluminium alloy foil. 9. This submission of the learned authorised representative for the Revenue cannot be accepted. Firstly, the composition of the disputed goods is not in question that they were an alloy of aluminium and so it cannot be presumed that the alloy had a different composition than the alloy under consideration before the Bombay High Court. Secondly, clause (vii) nowhere specifies that it excludes alloys of particular composition. Neither does the letter of the DG stipulate that the exclusion under clause (vii) was available only to a particular type of alloys. 10. Another submission of the learned authorised representative was that the judgment of the Bombay....