2011 (4) TMI 246 - AT - Customs

Demand - Anti dumping duty - Classification - Confiscation - Notification No. 138/2002-Cus dated 10.12.2002 - It is not in dispute that the plastic base of the item can be inserted into a socket/holder in General Lighting System (GLS) or in the casing of an emergency lamp - what is referred to as CFL in common parlance is the item which is bought by the consumer from the market and inserts in the socket/holder of the GLS/casing of emergency lamp etc - If the argument of the learned consultant is accepted, the item depicted in Figure I should be identical to the glass tube found in Figure II when exploded , but it is actually not. It is nobody s case that the glass tube, when separated from the integrated CFL , could be used as a CFL without choke - the simple test for deciding whether the item imported by the appellant is a CFL without choke is to ascertain whether it is readily usable as such by a retail consumer as a lamp by just inserting in the socket/holder of his GLS - it is held that the goods imported by the appellant, being CFLs without choke , classifiable under SH 8539 31 10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, would attract Anti-Dumping Duty in terms of Notification No. 138/02-Cus and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Commissioner in the second round of adjudication is liable to be upheld - the quantum of penalty will stand reduced to ₹ 20,000 - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff.
2. Applicability of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) under Notification No. 138/2002-Cus.
3. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act.
4. Imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
6. Admissibility of additional documents under Rule 23 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The primary issue was whether the imported goods were correctly classified. The appellant classified the goods as "Unbranded Electronic 9W PL Tube" and "Unbranded Electronic 11W PL Tube" under Tariff Item 8539 29 90. The Customs authorities reclassified these as Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) under Tariff Item 8539 31 10, asserting that the goods were CFLs without choke.

2. Applicability of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD):
The Customs authorities invoked Notification No. 138/2002-Cus, which imposes ADD on CFLs originating from China. The appellant argued that their goods were merely parts/components of CFLs and not complete CFLs, thus not covered by the notification. The Tribunal, however, upheld the Customs' view, stating that the goods were "readily usable as such by a retail consumer" and hence classified as CFLs without choke, attracting ADD.

3. Confiscation of Goods:
The goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act due to misdeclaration aimed at evading ADD. The Tribunal confirmed the confiscation, noting the deliberate misclassification and misdeclaration by the appellant.

4. Imposition of Fine in Lieu of Confiscation:
The original fine imposed was Rs 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal found this amount excessive relative to the value of the goods (Rs 2,66,831/-) and reduced the fine to Rs 50,000/-.

5. Imposition of Penalty:
A penalty of Rs 50,000/- was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal reduced this penalty to Rs 20,000/-, proportionate to the reduced fine.

6. Admissibility of Additional Documents:
The Tribunal allowed the appellant's miscellaneous application to bring additional documents on record under Rule 23 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, after examining their relevance and nexus to the case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Customs authorities' reclassification of the imported goods as CFLs without choke, thus attracting ADD under Notification No. 138/2002-Cus. The confiscation of goods was confirmed due to misdeclaration, but the fine and penalty amounts were reduced. The appeal was disposed of with these modifications, and the miscellaneous application was also disposed of.