2006 (7) TMI 567 - AT - Customs

Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Anti-dumping duty - Test report - Effect on quantum of pre-deposit - Anti-dumping duty

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispensation with the condition of pre-deposit of duty confirmed as anti-dumping duty and SAD along with personal penalty.
2. Import of consignment declared as P.L. lamps, later found to be compact fluorescent lamps attracting anti-dumping duty.
3. Initiation of proceedings for recovery of anti-dumping duty and short levy of special additional duty.
4. Contention regarding fresh proceedings based on mis-declaration of goods.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the application seeking dispensation with the pre-deposit condition of duty amounting to Rs. 87,97,302/- confirmed as anti-dumping duty and Rs. 5,91,439/- confirmed as SAD, along with an identical personal penalty. The appellants had imported consignment declared as P.L. lamps, which were subsequently identified as compact fluorescent lamps attracting anti-dumping duty. Initially, proceedings were initiated for under-valuation, resulting in confiscation of goods with fines and penalties. However, based on intelligence reports and test results, it was established that the goods were mis-declared, leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duty and short levy of special additional duty.

The appellant's advocate did not contest the matter on merits but argued that fresh proceedings post previous adjudication for under-valuation should not be initiated. The Revenue contended that the proceedings were related to anti-dumping duty based on test findings and relevant notifications. The tribunal observed that the goods were mis-declared as P.L. lamps, later identified as fluorescent lamps subject to anti-dumping duty. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument and directed them to deposit a specified amount within a stipulated period, failing which pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty would be required.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the mis-declaration of goods leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duty, rejecting the appellant's plea to dispense with the pre-deposit condition. The tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence of financial hardship and directed a specific deposit amount within a specified timeframe, maintaining the stay on the recovery of the balance amount during the appeal's pendency.