TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... between 12.6.2013 to 6.10.2014 were also leviable to antidumping duty. Based on these investigations notice was issued on 29.4.2015 demanding anti-dumping duty for all the consignments imported for the period 12.6.2013 to 6.10.2014 along with interest. The Commissioner confirmed the anti-dumping duty and imposed penalty under section 112 and 114AA. The goods were also confiscated under section 111(m) but were allowed to be redeemed under section 125 of the Customs act 1962. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the 13 consignments which were imported earlier were physically examined and released on payment of assessed duty, which have attained finality and therefore, the question of reviewing the same without filing an appeal against the assessment order is not justifiable. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Flock India Pvt. Ltd.: 2000 (172) ELT 285 SC and Priya Blue Industries: 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC). With regard to 8 Bills of Entry filed between 12.6.2013 and 8.4.2014 submits that the demand was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 28(1)(a), in as much as there is no evidence put forth by the Revenue to es....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4. The Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the present Bill of Entry filed by the appellant was examined by the Chartered Engineers and they certified that the goods were CR steel flat sheet coils of mill edged and this was also examined by M/s. SGS India Private Limited who had also confirmed that the coils were of mill edged and this was also accepted by the appellant vide his statement dated 30.10.2014. With regard to the earlier consignments, he submitted that the Bills of Entry had identical description and it is claimed that mill edged coils are rough edged coils which are further worked upon to produce slit edged coils and therefore, the slit edged coils are more expensive than the mill edged coils. Since the value of the earlier consignments was similar to the present ones it is evident that they were also mill edged coils. He further submitted that imports from other suppliers, the appellant had clearly instructed them to mention slit edged and the evidences recovered clearly show that the appellant had asked the suppliers to mention the specifications in the documents, while the consignments in dispute there is no such mention made by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing No. 55.08 are to be read, considering the fact that there was no support to the sewing thread manufactured by the appellant, it would not be covered by the exemption Notification which would only apply if goods manufactured fall within the particular Heading mentioned. As it is clear that the sewing thread is not put up on a support, CESTAT is clearly right on merits. Equally, we do not think that there is any ground for interference on the extended period of limitation being applicable inasmuch as CESTAT is again correct in saying that as the declaration and RT-12 returns being vital documents submitted by the respondent (appellant herein) did not mention the vital word "hanks", they suppressed a material fact which, to their knowledge, would not bring their sewing thread within the exemption Notification. For all these reasons, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed, without any order as to costs". 6. Finally, it is claimed that the Commissioner was justified in imposing penalty in as much as the appellant had knowingly to avoid payment of anti-dumping duty had mislead the Department by not making the required declarations. In his statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 3, Sub-section (i) of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R. 276 (E), dated the 22nd April, 2009 as amended by notification No. 56/2009-Customs, dated the 30th May, 2009, published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R. 370(E), dated the 30th May, 2009; And whereas, the designated authority, vide its final findings vide notification No. 14/6/2008-DGAD dated 24th November, 2009, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section I, dated the 24th November, 2009, has come to the conclusion that - (a) the subject goods have been exported to India from the subject countries below its normal value; (b) the domestic industry has suffered material injury; (c) the injury has been caused by the dumped imports from subject countries. and has recommended to impose definitive anti-dumping duties on all imports of the subject goods, originating in, or exported from, the subject countries; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the said Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and in pursuance of rules 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1250 mm of all series further worked than Cold rolled (cold reduced) with a thickness of up to 4 mm. 2. The anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be levied with effect from the date of imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, and shall be payable in Indian currency. [Notification No. 14/2010-Cus., dated 20-2-2010] 9. Let's examine whether anti-dumping duty is leviable with regard to the live consignment which includes 31 coils imported vide Bill of Entry No.6966866 dated 6.10.2014. The SGS report extracted below clearly states that "we are of the opinion that all coils visually inspected were observed with rough edges and they are mill edge coils". 10. Based on this report, it is clear that the live consignment consisting of 31 coils was Mill edge and the allegation by the appellant that only one or two core coils have been inspected proved baseless in as much as the above report clearly shows that all coils were inspected and the report was submitted based on physical examination of the same. These goods are also tested by Shri R. Sreedhar, Chartered Engineer and his certificate is extracted below: "as per the certificate the consignment comprise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h is not under dispute. Some of the documents seized also show that the consignments received from other overseas suppliers, the appellant had clearly asked them to mention the coil edge condition and these invoices clearly mention slit edge, while the consignments under dispute nowhere the edge conditions are mentioned and according to the Revenue goes to prove that though the appellant was aware that anti-dumping duty was liable to be paid, they had failed to mention the specifications of the coils. The appellant cannot get away from paying the relevant duties by stating that though they had knowledge it was for the officers concerned to assess the duties in accordance with the laws. The amendments to Section 17 of the Customs act 1962 clearly places the onus of correct assessment and payment of appropriate duty on the importer as rightly argued by the Revenue. While recording the statement when the question was asked whether the goods imported earlier were identical to the present consignment, the answer was "no comments" and for another question, as to why they did not insist the supplier to mention the edge conditions, their reply was that "I have no answer nothing to state in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....buyer in this document, nor does this document bear any date, nor is it duly signed. The Revenue has heavily relied on this document (so-called 'invoice') which indicates the name of the goods as "Glass Epoxy Copper Clad Laminates" and the value of the goods as USD 71,125. Ld. SDR has only reiterated the observations of the Commissioner in relation to this document. But we have found substance in the submissions of the Counsel. This document, with all the said infirmities, can hardly be accepted as a manufacturer's or trader's invoice. The Revenue has no case that it is international practice to issue a commercial invoice without naming the buyer/consignee. The whole case of the Revenue in respect of the goods covered by Bill of Entry dated 12-5-2000 is based on this document. On the basis of this document, they alleged that, in the said Bill of Entry, the importer misdeclared the description and value of the goods". In the case of Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), New Delhi Versus Marks Marketing P. Ltd. 2017 (346) E.L.T. 144 (Tri. - Del.) dated 16-9-2016, it was held that: "9. We find no merit in the above statement of the Revenue. Admittedly, the change in the classification o....