VETCARE ALLTECH PVT. LTD. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six appeals filed by the appellants herein are directed against the order in Appeal No. C.Cus 591 to 596/98 dated 30.6.1988 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai by which the Commissioner has rejected the appeals filed by the party against the orders in original. Since the law and facts involved in all these appeals are same, they were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture inter alia, of animal food supplement and Veterinary Drugs for which purpose necessary licence has been obtained under the Drugs Control Act some of the drugs manufactured by the appellants are exported under the Quantity Based Advance Licence (QBAL) Scheme under DEEC Scheme. For the purpose of export of finished products viz. Chloro Hydroxy Quinoline 60% and Halquinol BPC they have imported 8 Hydroxy Quinoline 98% from China on six occasions under seven Bills of entry during the period from 30.12.1996 to 5/1997. The final products were exported between the period 15.11.1996 and 19.6.1997 and the obligations under the QBAL was fulfilled. Show cause notices were however issued by the Assistant Commissioner Proposing to demand anti dumping duty in terms of Notification No. 80/96 -Cus dt 16.10.1996 and the Asstt. Commissioner passed the order confirming the anti -dumping duty under six different orders in original and on appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), the Commissioner confirmed the duty demanded in respect of six Bills of entry and allowed duty exemption in respect of one imported under Bill of entry No. 10942 dt 30.4.1997 which was made after issue of Notification 41/97, with direction to re -work out the quantum of duty and also to consider the prayer of the party for draw back. The appellants have come in appeal against the order in Appeal on the following grounds:

(3.) SHRI Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants while reiterating the grounds of appeal has invited our attention to Notification No. 80/96 and submitted that this Notification has levied anti -dumping duty on 8 Hydroxy Quinoline 98% (8 HQ for short). He has pleaded that vide Notification No. 27/'97 dated 1.4.1997 anti -dumping duty was based on final enquiry and the anti -dumping duty was confirmed on the goods. He has also invited our attention to Notification No. 5/2001 -Cus dated 22.1.2001 in terms of which the reviewing authority in its meeting in review published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, part I, Section I dated 29.11.2000 has come to the conclusion that the goods viz. 8 HQ imported from China has not caused any injury to the domestic industry in India during the period of investigation and the domestic industry has not suffered any material injury from imports of the goods from China. By the said Notification, Notification No. 27/97 -Cus dated 1st April 77 was also rescinded. He has also submitted that Notification 80/96 has levied anti -duping duty on 8 HQ. He has submitted the EXIM Policy 1992 -1997 completely exempted all inputs and makes it clear that all imports will be duty free if imported on the basis of quantity based Advance licence. He has pleaded that the goods imported are meant for manufacture of the final product and they have exported the final product and have followed the input -out ratio and no domestic sales have been effected and hence no injury has been caused to the domestic industry. He has also pleaded that paras 47 8b 48 of the Chapter VII dealing with Duty Exemption Scheme become redundant if exemption of duty is not allowed to the importation in question. He has also invited our attention to the Judgment in the following cases: