The Customs, Excise and Service Taxes Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, recently ruled in favour of the assessee/appellant by allowing exemption from anti-dumping duty on import of PVC resin despite discrepancies in the name of the manufacturer in the shipping documents and packaging. The issue at stake in the case was whether the appellant’s import from China should be subject to anti-dumping duty…
       The Customs, Excise and Service Taxes Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad recently ruled in favour of the assessee/appellant by allowing exemption from anti-dumping duty on imported PVC resin despite discrepancies in the name of the manufacturer in the shipping documents and on the packaging.
       The issue in the case was whether the appellant’s imports from China were subject to anti-dumping duties, which are protective tariffs imposed on foreign goods sold at below fair market value.
       Taxpayer/appellant Castor Girnar imported SG5 polyvinyl chloride resin by indicating “Jilantai Salt Chlor-Alkali Chemical Co., Ltd.” as the manufacturer. According to Circular No. 32/2019 – Customs (ADD), this designation would normally attract lower anti-dumping duties. However, the customs authorities pointed out a non-compliance since the name “Jilantai Salt Chlor-Alkali Chemical Co., Ltd” was printed on the package and the word “salt” was missing, and therefore refused exemption, stating that the imported products did not comply with the notification.
       Counsel submitted on behalf of the taxpayer that all import documents including invoices, packing lists and certificates of origin showed the correct name of the manufacturer as “China National Salt Jilantai Salt Chlor-Alkali Chemical Co., Ltd”. He pointed out that the Tribunal had considered similar issues in a previous order relating to Vinayak Trading. In that case, imports from “Xinjiang Mahatma Chlor-Alkali Co., Ltd.” were allowed to avail of preferential tariffs despite similar differences in the manufacturer’s name on the packaging. The Tribunal accepted documentary evidence of minor differences in markings and confirmed that the registered manufacturer was the actual manufacturer.
       Based on these arguments, the Tribunal comprising of Mr Raju and Mr Somesh Arora reversed the earlier decision and held that documentary evidence should prevail over minor differences in packaging markings. The Tribunal held that such minor differences do not amount to misrepresentation or fraud, particularly when there is ample documentation to support the claimed manufacturer.
       In this regard, CESTAT reversed the Customs Administration’s previous decision to deny the taxpayer tax exemption and held that the taxpayer company was entitled to a lower rate of anti-dumping duty, consistent with the precedent set in the Vinayak Trading case.