Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Rubber Mills (P) Ltd. vs Cc on 23 August, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(116)ECR852(TRI.-DELHI), 2004(174)ELT264(TRI-DEL)
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the imported goods (Synthetic Butadine Rubber) of Thailand origin shipped from Thailand by a trader/exporter, M/s. JTC Corporation, Japan, in terms of Notification No. 107/99-Cus dated 24.8.1999 and 73/2000-Cus dated 22.5.2000. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority by holding that the export of the goods must be treated to be from Japan and as such anti-dumping duty is leviable on the same under the above said notifications.
2. The Id.Counsel has contended that import of the goods had taken place from Thailand from where the goods were shipped to the appellants and the origin of the goods is also Thailand, and as such the above referred two notifications could not be invoked for imposing antidumping duty on those goods on the simple ground that the exporter of the goods had its office in Japan and LC was also opened in Japan, by the appellants. The impugned order deserves to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, the Id. SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.
4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record.
5. From the reading of both the above referred Notifications No. 107/99-Cus dated 24.8.1999 and 73/2000-Cus dated 22.5.2000, it is evident that the goods specified therein must originate in/or exported from Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, France, USA, Germany and Korea RP for attracting anti-dumping duty. In the present case, no doubt, the goods imported by the appellants, detailed above, are specified goods covered by the Notifications, but the other condition of the notifications, that the import must originate in/or exported, from Japan or any other country named therein does not stand satisfied. Admittedly, the imported goods are of Thailand origin, having been manufactured/produced in Thailand and not of Japan origin. Similarly, the shipment of the goods had been also made from Thailand and not from Japan. The fact that the Trader, M/s. JCT Corporation with whom the appellants placed the order for those goods and opened LC in their favour at Japan and who has to be treated as exporter of the goods, had its office at Japan and issued formal invoice from that office, could not lead to the conclusion that export of the goods had taken place from Japan. The place of business of the exporter i.e. Japan, could not be treated as a place of export, when the goods are of Thailand origin and had been actually exported from Thailand, as observed above from, through a Shipping Bill, to India for delivery to the appellants. Therefore, the import of the goods in question by the appellants did not fall within the ambit of the above said notifications for attracting the anti-dumping duty.
6. In the light of discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing anti-dumping duty on the goods in question cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The appeal of the appellants accordingly stands allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.