COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PUNE versus M/S BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 21-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
177
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PUNE
v.
M/S BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5644-5645 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
[DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Anti-Dumping – Demand of anti-dumping duty on the product
‘Styrene Butadiene Rubber’ (SBR) – Two show cause notices dated
23.05.2006 and 30.06.2006 were issued to the respondent alleging
that it had mis-declared its goods as ‘Lutex-701’ and ‘Lutex-780’,
and they were goods SBR of 1900 series on which anti-dumping
duty was leviable – Goods were confiscated and anti-dumping duty,
besides the levy of interest and penalty were imposed – The
Commissioner of Customs held that: (i) the goods were leviable to
confiscation in terms of s. 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962; (ii) the
goods were chargeable to anti-dumping duty; and (iii) the respondent
was liable to pay interest u/s. 28AB and penalty u/s. 112(a) r/w.
s.118(a) of the Customs Act 1962 – However, the Customs, Excise
& Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESAT) came to the conclusion
that the show cause notices could not be sustained – Before the
Supreme Court, the appellant-Commissioner of Customs contended
that the notice to show cause dated 23.05.2006 contained a specific
reference to the fact that the test report by the Indian Rubber
Manufacturers’ Research Association (IRMRA) dated 06.03.2006
had revealed that the goods were found to be SBR of 1900 series
and since the goods originated in Korea R.P. they were subject to
anti-dumping duty and a similar averment was contained in the show
cause notice dated 30.05.2006 – Further, the test reports of the
IRMRA which were sought by the respondent also contained a similar
finding that the goods which were imported were SBR of the 1900
series – Held: The Tribunal has set aside the decision of the
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 177
177
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
Commissioner of Customs on an evidently superficial evaluation of
the issues raised in the appeals – The Tribunal came to the
conclusion that there is “no whisper of any reason in the show
cause notice to disturb the classification” claimed by the importer
– This finding is contrary to the record – The show cause notice
dated 23.05.2006 clearly states that the goods imported in question
were declared as ‘Lutex-701’ in import documents and, as per test
report from IRMRA goods were found to be SBR of 1900 Series –
Similar allegations were contained in the second show-cause notice
– Further, the Commissioner also recorded that the importer had
also approached IRMRA independently for testing the samples of
Lutex 701 and 780 in their control – A similar finding was arrived
at by IRMRA from the samples furnished by the importer – None of
these findings were displaced in the order of the Tribunal – The
Tribunal has not looked into the merits of the appeals – The findings
of the Tribunal are contrary to the record and cannot therefore be
sustained – Since, the Tribunal has not considered the case of the
respondent in appeal on merits, it would be appropriate to restore
the proceedings back to the Tribunal for the purpose – Accordingly,
the appeals are allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal is set
aside.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.5644-
5645 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2017 of the Customs,
Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, at Mumbai
Final order No.A/90222-90223 of 2017 in Customs Appeal No. C/70/
17-MUM and C/71/07.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Aruna
Gupta, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Mohd. Akhil, Ms. Vishakha, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Surender Kumar Gupta, Neeraj, Chitvan Singhal, Prashant Rawat,
Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
179
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Admit.
2. These appeals by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune arises
from a judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(“CESAT” or the “Tribunal”) dated 27 September 2017. The question
of law which has been formulated in the appeals is whether the Tribunal
erred in setting aside the demand of anti – dumping duty on the product
‘Styrene Butadiene Rubber’ (“SBR”) classified under the heading 4002
of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975and imported from
Korea.
3. A show cause notice1 dated 23 May 2006 was issued to the
respondent covering five Bills of Entry under which the product ‘Lutex
-701’ was imported namely:
“(1) Bill of Entry 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.