CESTAT allows Anti Dumping Duty Exemption for Imported Resin Previously Denied Over Discrepancy in Manufacturer's Name [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) of Ahmedabad recently ruled in favor of an assessee/ appellant, allowing an exemption from anti-dumping duty on imported PVC resin, despite discrepancies in the manufacturer’s name on shipping documents and packaging.

The case questioned  whether the appellant’s imports from China should be subjected to anti-dumping duty, a protective tariff to counter foreign goods priced below fair market value.

Understand the EPF & ESI Act – Key Supreme Court Judgments Explained - Register Now

The assessee/ appellant, Castor Girnar imported PVC Resin SG5, declaring “CNSG Jilantai Salt Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd.” as the manufacturer, a name that would typically qualify for a reduced anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 32/2019-Custom (ADD). However, the customs authorities flagged an inconsistency, as the packaging bore the name “CNSG Jilantai Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd.”—lacking the word “Salt”—and thus denied the exemption, claiming the imports did not align with the notification’s terms.

Representing the assessee, the counsel argued that all import documentation, including the invoice, packing list, and certificate of origin, named the correct manufacturer, “CNSG Jilantai Salt Chlori-Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd.” He pointed out that the tribunal had already addressed a similar issue in a previous ruling involving Vinayak Trading. In that case, goods imported from “Xinjian Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Ltd.” were allowed a concessional duty rate despite a similar discrepancy in the manufacturer's name on packaging. The tribunal had accepted documentary evidence over minor discrepancies in labeling, affirming that the registered manufacturer was the actual producer.

Understand the EPF & ESI Act – Key Supreme Court Judgments Explained - Register Now

Following these arguments, the tribunal bench of Mr Raju and Mr Somesh Arora reviewed the previous ruling, and found that documentary evidence should prevail over minor inconsistencies on packaging labels. The tribunal observed that such small variances do not imply misrepresentation or fraud, especially when extensive documentation supports the declared manufacturer.

Consequently, CESTAT set aside the customs authority’s earlier denial of exemption for the assessee, and ruled that the assessee-company was eligible for the lower anti-dumping duty rate, in line with the precedent established in the Vinayak Trading case.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates