Third‑Party Records Cannot Fix Anti‑Dumping Duty on Past Imports: CESTAT Ahmedabad

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Ahmedabad upheld anti-dumping duty on one live consignment of printing plates but set aside demands on eight earlier imports declared as iron door plates.

A different description of goods in a buyer’s records cannot alone sustain a duty demand on past imports cleared on consistent invoices, packing lists and transit documents, especially where the Department did not obtain the expert opinion for those imports that it relied on for the live consignment, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad has held [Alpha Impex & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs - Mundra, 2026-juristway.com-3451-CESTAT(Ahmedabad)-Customs].

The Bench of Somesh Arora, Member (Judicial), who wrote the order, and Satendra Vikram Singh, Member (Technical), partly allowed five appeals.

Nine containers were imported from China between April 2022 and February 2023, declared as iron door plates. The Department alleged they were digital offset CTC printing plates, attracting anti-dumping duty. On examination of the ninth consignment at Mundra, covered by a warehousing bill of entry of 21 Oct 2023, the goods were found mis-declared, and a Chartered Engineer certified them as printing plates. The Department extended the demand to eight earlier consignments, relying on records of the Chennai buyer and a statement of the importer’s proprietor that was later retracted.

For the live consignment, the Tribunal held that mis-declaration was manifest, and the importer’s plea that the supplier had dispatched the wrong goods by mistake did not help. Confiscation under Section 111 with a redemption fine of ₹2,00,000 and the anti-dumping duty of ₹27,48,995 with interest were upheld.

For the past consignments, the buyer’s statement recorded that they were iron door plates, and the Chinese supplier certified the same. The Bench held that if an expert certificate was needed to establish the nature of the live goods, it was equally needed for the earlier ones, and none had been obtained. The demand on those eight consignments was set aside.

The penalty on Alpha Impex under Section 114A was cut from ₹1,94,60,948 to ₹27,48,995, with no separate penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) in view of the proviso to Section 114A. Penalties under Section 114AA were reduced to ₹3,00,000 on the proprietor and ₹2,00,000 on Sabu George, and penalties of ₹50,000 each under Section 112 were fixed on others, including the warehouse operator.

2026-juristway.com-3451-CESTAT(Ahmedabad)-Customs