2014 (1) TMI 479 - AT - Customs

Modification of the Stay Order - Demand of pre deposit - Extension of time period - Held that - anti-dumping duty could be imposed on CFL without choke and with choke. The Board s clarification in respect of items duty would be levied on two types of CFL such as Complete, ready to use wherein the choke is integrated within the lamp and choke is external - it is appropriate that applicant should be granted extension of time for compliance. Accordingly, the period of compliance of stay order is extended for a further period of 6 weeks - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of Stay Order
2. Interpretation of Notification No.138/2002-Cus
3. Applicability of Anti-dumping Duty
4. Financial Hardship Claim
5. Extension of Time for Compliance

Modification of Stay Order:
The applicant sought modification of Stay Order No.42008/2013, requiring a predeposit of Rs.2,50,00,000 within 8 weeks. The advocate argued that certain facts were overlooked, emphasizing that the goods were classified as CFL without choke, making the levy unsustainable. Reference was made to a CBEC circular and a previous Tribunal case. The Revenue contended that the goods fell under the notification's CFL with choke category. The Tribunal reviewed the stay order, noting similarities with a previous case and directed the predeposit based on previous findings.

Interpretation of Notification No.138/2002-Cus:
The Tribunal examined Notification No.138/2002, which specified rates for CFL with and without choke. The applicant imported CFL described as "Single U Tube CFL 9W" and "Energy Saving Lamps CFL 7W." The adjudicating authority treated the items as CFL without choke due to missing specifications. The Tribunal considered the rates of duty for CFL with and without choke as per the notification.

Applicability of Anti-dumping Duty:
The Board clarified that anti-dumping duty applied to specific types of CFLs based on the integration of the choke within the lamp. The Tribunal directed the applicant to make the predeposit based on the overall circumstances and previous decisions. The classification issue was deemed a factual aspect to be addressed during the appeal hearing, leading to the rejection of the modification application.

Financial Hardship Claim:
The advocate's argument regarding financial hardship lacked supporting material, leading the Tribunal to dismiss it. The Tribunal emphasized the need for compliance with the predeposit requirement and extended the compliance period by six weeks.

Extension of Time for Compliance:
The Tribunal granted an extension for compliance, setting a new reporting date. The miscellaneous application was disposed of with these terms, highlighting the importance of adhering to the predeposit directive and the extended compliance timeline.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of modification of the stay order, interpretation of the notification, applicability of anti-dumping duty, consideration of financial hardship claims, and the extension of time for compliance, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal aspects and arguments presented in the case.