K. KOCHUMON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an importer of a commodity called 'reflective glass'. Exts. P1 & P2 are the bills of entries filed by them at the time of import. Ext. P3 is the notification issued by the 1st respondent levying antidumping duty on import of Float Glass originating in, or exported from, China and Indonesia. On the strength of Ext. P3, anti -dumping duty was imposed and the petitioner could clear the goods only on furnishing Exts. P4 & P5 Bank Guarantee for the duty that is payable.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner disputes his liability to pay antidumping duty, as, according to him, reflective glass is excluded from the description of Float Glass, in respect of which anti -dumping duty has been imposed by Ext. P3. He is also making reference to Exts. P6 & P7 notifications. Ext. P6 is the notification dated 22 -8 -2003 containing the final findings in respect of the proposal for levying anti -dumping duty. A reading of paragraph 8 shows that the preliminary findings as regards the product under consideration, excluded reflective glass from the scope of the investigation and imposition of antidumping duty. This position is also seen reiterated in the conclusions and also in the schedule, to the notification itself. Ext. P7 is yet another notification issued by the Customs Department vide Notification No. , dated 12 -11 -2003. This also carries the description of the goods excluding reflective glass.

(3.) SIMILARLY , when it comes to Ext. P10, the notification containing the final findings of the product under consideration and like article, paragraphs 6 & 8, reads as under : -