TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies under Sections 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act. 2. Shri R. Parthasarthy, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Supreme Woollen Mills Ltd., a joint sector company with Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation (PSIDC); imported acrylic fibre from M/s. Flotec Co. Ltd., Taiwan and filed two Bills of Entry both dated 24-12-98 for manufacturing acrylic and synthetic yarn; that they declared the Country of Origin as Taiwan in accordance with the Certificate of Origin that accompanied the consignment and which was issued by the General Chamber of Commerce of Taiwan; that, however, investigation conducted by the Revenue concluded that the impugned goods were of Thailand origin and the original Bills of lading was exchanged with 6 sw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24-12-98 and recording the statement dated 5-1-99 of the officials of NYK; that this Fax message has been issued by Flotec Co. Ltd. more to cover up their wrong doing. He also pointed out that both the goods would have cost them almost the same as the price of Taiwan origin goods is more than goods of Thailand origin which would have subjected to additional duty (Anti Dumping duty); that as such there is no financial gain and therefore, the question of misdeclaration does not arise; He, further contended that provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act are not applicable as the country of origin was specified by them in Bill of Entry with reference to the Certificate of Origin that accompanied the consignment; that Proviso to Section 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also been placed on the decision in Tarsem Singh Multani & Sons v. C.C., Amritsar, 2001 (134) E.L.T. 753 (T). 4. Countering the arguments, Shri K.M. Mandal, learned Advocate for Revenue, submitted that it has not been disputed by the Appellants that goods are of Thailand origin; that anti-dumping duty @ Rs. 9.73 per Kg. has been imposed on acrylic fibre originated from Thailand; that as such there was a liability on the Appellants, being importer to discharge the duty liability; that the liability to duty does not get extinguished even if there is no provision to recover the same; that once the duty has been paid by the Appellants, it cannot be claimed back as their liability to pay the duty was always there. In this regard, the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....then the mere fact that the goods were released on the bond being executed, would not take away the power of the customs authorities to levy redemption fine." 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act empowers the Central Government to impose an anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping if any article is exported from any country or territory to India at less than its normal value. Rules 18 and 20 of Rules, 1995 also empowers the Central Government to impose by Notification anti-dumping duty. Notification No. 61/97-Cus., imposes an anti-dumping duty on acrylic fibre originated from Thailand. As it is not in dispute that the impugned acrylic fibre, imported by the Appellants,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Larger Bench in Caprihans case, had allowed the Appeal vide Final Order No. 118/2002 (Chennai), dated 30-1-2002 [2002 (147) E.L.T. 1003 (T)] and the Appeal filed by Revenue has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27-1-2003, after condoning the delay in Civil Appeal No. 5604/2002 [2003 (157) E.L.T. A80 (S.C.)]. Accordingly the provisions of Sections 111, 112 and 114A of the Customs Act were not applicable when the show cause notice dated 5-11-99 was issued to the Appellants. The learned Advocate for the Appellants has even contended that even after insertion of sub-section (8) in Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, in May, 2000, these provisions are not applicable in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills ....