TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trochemials Company Limited (KKPC), Republic of Korea for the sale of their products, namely, Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) and other products. The appellant has been authorised by KKPC under an authorization dated 6th May, 1998 to appear and plead on their behalf. The present appeals have been filed by the appellant in its capacity as an interested/aggrieved party and as also the representatives of KKPC. 3.Synthetics and Chemicals Limited (respondent no. 3 herein) filed an Anti-Dumping Petition on 9th of September, 1997 before the Designated Authority appointed under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short "the Tariff Act") against the imports of SBR originating in or exported from Japan, Korea, Turkey, Taiwan, USA, Germany and France. It was alleged therein that the import of SBR from the subject countries was causing injury to the domestic industry manufacturing SBR in India. Respondent No. 3 furnished details regarding the normal value of the products in the subject countries and the margin of dumping. It was alleged that as a result of the dumped imports of SBR the domestic industry, namely, Respondent No. 3, was incurring heavy losses on its SBR activity. It was further a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... anti-dumping duty on the basis of the recommendations in the final findings dated 2nd of June, 1999. 7.The appellant being aggrieved, filed appeals before the Tribunal against the final findings dated 2nd of June, 1999. In the Memorandum of Appeals, grounds were taken, inter alia, as to the issues of normal value dumping margin, injury causal link in the context of domestic industry and like articles. During the course of arguments, as noted by the Tribunal in paragraph 4 of its order, counsel appearing for the appellant did not urge any ground other than that domestic industry has not suffered injury on account of import of SBR from the subject countries and that there was no causal link between the injury and import from the subject countries. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not go into the question as to whether the fixation of normal value and dumping margin of articles imported from the subject countries was correct or not. The Tribunal also did not go into the question as to whether the normal selling price fixed by the Designated Authority was correct. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeals except to the extent that variable anti-dumping duty greater than ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the appellant put forth three-fold submissions. Firstly, that the Designated Authority while assessing injury to the domestic industry in case of certain parameters, had taken into consideration the data relating to the year immediately preceding the period of investigation whereas the Tribunal in para 12 of the impugned order has held that the injury assessment by the Designated Authority was based on the data relating to the year 1995-96 only. According to him, finding recorded by the Tribunal was factually incorrect. The second submission relates to the imposition of duty on products falling under Tariff Entry 3903.90 by the Tribunal. It was submitted that against the finding recorded by the Designated Authority that the products in question fell under heading 4002.19, neither the Union of India nor Respondent No. 3 or any other interested party had filed appeal or objections to the finding recorded by the Designated Authority; that the Tribunal had come to this conclusion suo motu and hence this portion of the order was liable to be set aside. The third and the last argument deals with the point that the Tribunal has converted the duty imposed in US dollar term from the rupe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e anti-dumping duty however is payable on Styrene Butadiene Rubber of specified series as stated, even if it is sought to be cleared under any other heading of the Customs Tariff Act. The Customs Authority is at liberty and expected to classify the goods correctly, if the goods offered for clearance are not classified correctly." held that the Designated Authority wanted to impose anti-dumping duty on all grades of SBR irrespective of whether it fell under heading 39.03 or 40.02. The Designated Authority imposed the anti-dumping duty on the SBR falling in sub-heading 4002.19 only which was a clerical omission and required to be corrected. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that anti-dumping duty was liable to be imposed on all grades of SBR falling under sub-heading 4002.19 or 3903.90. That the Customs Authorities have to impose duty on all types of SBR irrespective of their classification. After going through the order of the Designated Authority and the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has quoted and relied upon the observation of the Designated Authority in paragraph 7 reproduced above, out of context. The Designated Authority in paragraph 5 of its order observed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the Authority agrees with the argument of the petitioner to the extent that product under consideration is styrene butadiene rubber of specified series as stated irrespective of customs heading. The Authority thus holds that whereas it is not justified to cover all items falling under the sub-heading 3903.90 for the purpose of imposing anti-dumping duty in present case the anti-dumping duty however is payable on Styrene Butadiene Rubber of specified series as stated even if it is sought to be cleared under any other heading of the Customs Tariff Act. The Customs Authority is at liberty and expected to classify the goods correct if the goods offered for clearance are not classified correctly." (Emphasis supplied) 16.The findings recorded by the Designated Authority in para 7 of its order clearly indicate that the Designated Authority did not intend to cover SBR which was being imported under sub-heading 3903.90 for the purpose of imposing duty; what the Designated Authority held was, that if the goods were being imported by wrongly classifying them under sub-heading 4002.19, then the Customs Authorities are at liberty and expected to classify the goods correctly. It was hel....