2007 (8) TMI 503 - AT - Customs

Anti-dumping duty - Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) - Held that - It is not in dispute that these glass tubes could be fitted with choke-PCB assembly and plastic end-cap to make CFLs. By no stretch of imagination can the glass tubes alone be treated as CFLs. Obviously, they are only part of CFLs. The Revenue has no case that anti-dumping duty is leviable under N/N. 138/2002-Cus. ibid on parts of CFLs imported from China - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under anti-dumping duty notification and applicability of the duty on the imported items.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants who imported goods declared as "Sealed Glass Tubes" and classified under CTH 7002 20 90, later amended to CTH 8539 90 90, without paying anti-dumping duty. A dispute arose with the Customs authorities who claimed the goods to be "Compact Fluorescent Lamps" (CFL) after testing a sample at the Electronics Regional Test Laboratory. The authorities issued a show-cause notice demanding anti-dumping duty, confiscation of goods, and imposed penalties. The Commissioner's order demanded Rs. 36,22,900/- as duty, ordered confiscation with redemption option, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under the Customs Act.

The appellants argued that the imported item, along with "plastic end-cap" and "choke-PCB assembly," was only a part of a CFL, making the anti-dumping duty notification inapplicable. They cited a similar case where the Tribunal set aside a duty demand on goods of Chinese origin, recognizing them as parts of CFLs. The appellants contended that the glass tubes alone could not be considered as CFLs and were only part of the final product.

The Tribunal observed that the glass tubes imported by the appellants were indeed sealed glass tubes, which could be assembled with choke-PCB assembly and plastic end-cap to form CFLs. The Tribunal concluded that the glass tubes alone could not be treated as CFLs and were only part of the final product. Referring to the precedent set by a similar case involving goods of Chinese origin, the Tribunal held that anti-dumping duty was not applicable to parts of CFLs imported from China. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner's order demanding anti-dumping duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the imported glass tubes and the final product CFLs, establishing that the duty notification did not apply to the imported items as they were only parts of CFLs.