EOUs need not debit anti-dumping duty to the B-17 bond at import stage

TNC Rajagopalan answers SME queries related to GST, export and import matters

We refer to your reply (BS - SME Chatroom – October 28) that anti-dumping duty is not levied on imports by EOU under Section 9A(2A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Does it mean that the anti-dumping duty amount need not be debited to the B-17 bond amount at the time furnishing intimation to the jurisdictional Customs authorities under Rule-5 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty or for Specific End Use) Rules 2022?

 

Yes. There is no exemption for anti-dumping duty under the notification 52/2003-Cus dated 31st March 2003, which prescribes the procedure for intimation under the said Rule-5. When EOUs import the goods, anti-dumping duty is not leviable at all. Thus, the event of taxation of anti-dumping duty is not the time of imports by the EOU but the time when the imported goods 'as such' or the finished goods manufactured from the imported goods are removed from EOU into DTA. In my opinion, therefore, it is not necessary to debit anti-dumping duties to the B-17 bond at the time of furnishing the said Rule-5 intimation to Customs.

 

In the bill of lading that was prepared for presentation under a letter of credit, there is a spelling error in the address of the 'notify party'. It is a clerical error apparent on the face of the document and cannot in any way lead to delivery to a different party. Can the bank refuse to negotiate the documents on the grounds that this is a discrepancy?

 

No. Article 14(d) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 2007 Revision (ICC Publication 600) says that ‘data in a document, when read with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other document or the credit’. Clause 25 of the International Standard Banking Practices for the Examination of Documents under Documentary Credits, 2007 Revision for UCP 600 (ICC Publication 681-E) says that ‘a misspelling or typing error that does not affect the meaning of a word or the sentence in which it occurs does not make a document discrepant. For example, a description of merchandise as “maschine” instead of “machine” or “fountan pen” instead of "fountain pen” or “modle” instead of “model” would not make a document discrepant. However, a description as “model 123” instead of “model 321” would not be regarded as a typing error and would constitute a discrepancy.

 

We refer to RBI’s recent directives to close EDPMS/IDPMS entries up to ₹10 lakhs based on a declaration of the importer/exporter. We want to know whether the ₹10 lakhs limit refers to the value of the shipping bill or bill of entry or only the shortfall in value realized or remittance made.

 

In my opinion, only the bills of entry or shipping bills for a value ₹10 lakhs or less can be closed in accordance with AD Circular no. 12 dated 1st October 2025. 

 

Business Standard invites readers’ SME queries related to GST, export and import matters. You can write to us at smechat@bsmail.in