2007 (3) TMI 566 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake apparent from the record in the final order.
2. Demand of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on imported goods.
3. Compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act.
4. Interpretation of Notification No. 138/2002-Cus.
5. Non-compliance leading to dismissal of appeal.
6. Overlooking the proviso to para 2 of the Notification.
7. Recalling the final order for remand without predeposit.

Issue 1: Rectification of mistake apparent from the record in the final order
The appellants filed an application seeking rectification of a mistake apparent from the record in the Final Order passed by the Bench. The mistake related to the dismissal of the party's appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. The Final Order directed disposal of the appeal subject to predeposit of the entire amount of ADD.

Issue 2: Demand of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on imported goods
The original authority demanded ADD on 'Compact Fluorescent Lamps' (CFL) imported by the assessees from Hong Kong. The demand was based on Notification No. 138/2002-Cus. issued by the Central Government finalizing the provisional assessment imposed on CFL originating from Hong Kong. The assessee contended that the goods were imported beyond the validity period of the provisional notification, and thus, ADD was not leviable.

Issue 3: Compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act
The appellate authority directed predeposit of the entire duty amount under Section 129E, which led to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance. The party failed to comply with this direction, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal once again. This non-compliance with Section 129E was a crucial factor in the legal proceedings.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Notification No. 138/2002-Cus
The proviso to para 2 of Notification No. 138/2002-Cus. stated that ADD on 'CFL with choke' from Hong Kong would be effective from the date of issue in the Official Gazette. The appellants imported 'CFL with choke' from Hong Kong, making ADD not leviable as the Notification did not have a retrospective effect on such imports.

Issue 5: Non-compliance leading to dismissal of appeal
The party's failure to make the predeposit as directed by the Bench resulted in the dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance with Section 129E. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed in the High Court against the final order of the Tribunal.

Issue 6: Overlooking the proviso to para 2 of the Notification
The Tribunal overlooked the proviso to para 2 of Notification No. 138/2002-Cus., which would have affected the decision on the leviability of ADD on 'CFL with choke' imported from Hong Kong. This oversight led to the need for a recall of the final order for a proper decision on merits.

Issue 7: Recalling the final order for remand without predeposit
In light of the overlooked provision in the Notification, the Tribunal recalled the Final Order and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal on merits without insisting on predeposit. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for a fair decision in accordance with the law.