Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Customs vs Plaza Lamps And Tubes Ltd. on 17 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(185)ELT223(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Heard both sides.
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods imported by the respondents are not liable to pay anti-dumping duty as per Notification No. 128/2001, dated 21-12-2001.
3. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the Notification the Compact Fluorescent Lamps falling under Chapter 85 without choke are liable to anti-dumping duty. The contention is that the respondent made import of Compact Fluorescent Lamps without choke, therefore, are covered under the scope of the notification.
4. The contention of the respondent is that these are not complete Fluorescent Lamps the other parts also required for completion of the Compact Fluorescent Lamps. The other parts are not imported by them, therefore, they are not covered under the scope of the notification. The respondent relied upon the decision of Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of Permalite Electricals (P) Ltd. reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. 164 to submit that, the Authority for Advance Ruling, for the same goods held that antidumping duty is not leviable as these are not Compact Fluorescent Lamps without Choke. The respondents also relied upon the report of ERTL where the laboratory stated that the imported goods were only parts of Compact Fluorescent Lamps without Choke.
5. We find that in this case the dispute is whether the respondents are liable to pay anti-dumping duty in respect of the goods imported by them. The notification provides that Compact Fluorescent Lamps falling under Chapter 85 is with Choke or without Choke imported from Republic of China manufactured by M/s. Philip and Yamiro Lighting Co. Ltd. are liable to pay anti-dumping duty. The respondents are not disputing the fact that the goods are imported from China and manufactured by the above-mentioned manufacturer. The respondents also produced sample of the goods imported.
6. The appellant heavily relied upon the decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of Permalite Electricals (supra). We find that in the case of Permalite Electricals the goods imported were sealed coated tube with filament only whereas in the present case the sealed coated tube is with filament are also plastic lamp base of plastic or of iron metal. As per the contention of respondents only Choke and holder is required to make it complete Fluorescent tube. In these circumstances, we find in the decision of Authority for Advance Ruling, the goods was different from the goods imported by the present respondents.
7. In the Bill of Entry respondents declared that the goods in question as glass tubes. The sample taken by the Customs authorities were sent to the ERTL and they informed that they had not received the samples thereafter the same samples were supplied by the importer directly to ERTL. The importer handed over other samples to the Custom authorities, which was sent for examination. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not relied upon the report while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. On the ground that the examination is not in respect of the samples which were sent by the Customs authorities. The respondents has not filed any appeal against this finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) nor any cross objections has been filed. Therefore, we are not relying upon the test report. The present goods are Compact Fluorescent Tubes with plastic lamp base and only Choke and holder is required to complete the tubes. A notification vide which the anti-dumping duty is specifically provided that complete lamps without choke are also liable to pay anti-dumping duty. In view of the above discussion, we find that the respondents made import of Compact Fluorescent Lamps without Choke, therefore, are liable to pay antidumping duty. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.