CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10483/2013
The following substantial question of law has arisen in these
appeals for determination by this Court:
“Whether Anti Dumping Duty is applicable on flat roll
product of stainless steel having width between 1250
mm to 1280 mm under Notification No. 14/2010-Cus.,
dated 20.02.2010 as amended by Notification
86/2011-Cus, dated 06.09.2011?”
therefore, the facts which have no bearing on the aforesaid issue
are avoided. The material facts which need to be noted are that
vide Notification No. 14/2010-Cus., dated 20.02.2010 anti dumping
duty was imposed by the Central Government on certain goods
imported from some specified countries which included cold-rolled
flat products of stainless steel of width of 600 mm up to 1250 mm
of all series with a thickness of upto 4 mm and the subject matter
thereof, as per the said Notification, was as under:
“Subject: Anti-dumping (Mid-term Review) investigation
limited to the product scope of definitive
Anti-dumping Duty imposed on Cold-Rolled Flat Products
of Stainless Steel of the width of 600mm upto 1250 mm
of all series further worked then Cold Rolled (cold
reduced) with a thickness of up to 4 mm, originating
in or exported from China PR, Japan, Korea, European
Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand and USA- Final
Findings.”
This mid-term review was at the instance of the indigenious
industry and in the representation submitted by it, it was pointed
out that the deisgnated authority had restricted the width of the
subject goods in the original investigation to 1250 mm. While doing
so, no tolerance was prescribed. It is stated that no engineering
product can be produced to the exact dimenions without any
tolerance. It was further pointed out that in the absence of any
tolerance in the recommendations and in the customs notification,
the products of width 1250 mm or lower are being declared as having
width of 1251 mm to 1300 mm and thereby anti dumping duty is
circumvented. After detailed exercise of review, it was decided to
specify the tolerance limits as well. Resultantly, Notification
dated 08.06.2011 was issued prescribing the tolerance limits in the
following manner:
“In the said notification in para 1 after the Table the
following shall be inserted namely:
(a) width tolerance of (+) 30mm shall apply to Mil
edged cold rolled flat products of stainless steel of
specified width of 1000mm or more but not exceeding
1250mm.
(b) width tolerance of (+) 4 mm shall apply to rim
edged cold rolled flat products of stainless steel of
specified width exceeding 1000mm but not exceeding
1250mm.”
It becomes clear from the aforesaid that those products where
the width is 1250 mm, tolerance level up to 1250 mm is to be
applied meaning thereby the products' width between 1251 mm to
1300 mm were also supposed to bear anti dumping duty.
Insofar as the respondents herein are concerned, they had
imported the subject goods and the width thereof was more than 1250
mm but less than 1300 mm. Their submission was that they were not
supposed to pay any anti dumping duty having regard to the fact
that vide Notification dated 20.02.2010 anti dumping duty is to be
paid only on those steel cold rolled products of the width between
600 mm to 1250 mm. Since their contention was not accepted by the
Department, these respondents preferred an appeal before the
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The
CESTAT has allowed the appeal accepting the contention of these
respondents that the Notification prescribes that stainless steel
of specified width will not be exceeding 1250 mm and, therefore,
the same is not applicable in the case of the respondents.
Challenging that decision these appeals are filed by the Revenue.
From the narration of facts, particularly mid term review
culminating in Notification dated 06.09.2011, it becomes clear that
tolerance level of + 30 mm is to be taken into account. In this
manner, if the width is between 1251 mm to 1280 mm, the anti
dumping duty would be payable as per the Notification. The learned
counsel for the respondents could not dispute that the imports are
of the period after the issuance of the Notification dated
06.09.2011 and the width of their product was between 1251 mm to
1280 mm. These imports were, therefore, clearly liable for anti
dumping duty. The CESTAT while deciding the appeal in favour of
the responents did not consider the impact of review Notification
dated 06.09.2011 in its proper prospects as indicated above.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the CESTAT is
set aside with no order as to cost.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2407-2408/2014
In these appeals, though the question of law is same and,
therefore, the judgment of the CESTAT is unsustainable, however,
the responents have pointed out that the goods sought to be
imported were not cleared and were re-exported. Since the goods
stand re-exported the question of payment of any anti dumping duty
would not arise. Therefore, the CESTAT has taken into consideration
this ground while setting aside the demand of anti dumping duty and
rightly allowed the appeal of the respondents. This appeal is,
accordingly, dismissed.
[A.K. SIKRI]
Civil Appeal No(s). 10483/2013
VERSUS
M/S.MASCOT INTERNATIONAL Respondent(s)
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL. ON IA 1/2013 FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 2/2013)
Date : 03-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG
Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv.
Mr. P.K. Mullick, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR
Mr. Yogandhera P. Jha, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Ashok, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Batra, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No(s). 10483/2013
Delay condoned.
The appeal is allowed in term of the signed judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
C.A. No. 2407-2408/2014
The appeals are dismissed in term of the signed judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)