9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 429 - AT - CustomsLevy of anti dumping duty - Notification No.138/2002 dated 10.12.2002 read with customs Notification No. 128/2010 dated 21.12.2001 - Held that - as per the test report of Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (ERTL), Kolkata, it is confirmed that the imported goods are CFL and originated from China and are chargeable to ADD. We also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has in the impugned order already given a relief and waived both the fine and penalty. Accordingly, we find that there is no irregularity in the impugned order and the same is upheld - Decided against Assessee.
Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding imposition of Anti-dumping duty on imported goods. Analysis: The appellant, M/s. Choice International, imported 'Fluorescent Lamps' from M/s. Stride Promotion (P) Ltd., Singapore, shipped from Shanghai, China. The department imposed Anti-dumping duty on CFLs originating from China or Hongkong to India. Despite multiple hearing dates and notices, the appellant failed to appear. The Ld. AR presented submissions, emphasizing that the imported goods were confirmed as CFLs from China by the Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (ERTL), Kolkata. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already waived fines and penalties. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, concluding that the goods were CFLs chargeable to Anti-dumping duty. The appeal was rejected on merits due to the appellant's non-appearance and the Commissioner's findings. This judgment highlights the importance of responding to legal proceedings and presenting a defense. The Tribunal considered the test report confirming the nature and origin of the imported goods, reinforcing the imposition of Anti-dumping duty. The Commissioner's decision to waive fines and penalties was upheld, indicating a fair consideration of the case. The Tribunal's decision to proceed ex-parte due to the appellant's repeated non-appearance underscores the necessity of active participation in legal matters. The rejection of the appeal on merits signifies the Tribunal's adherence to established regulations and findings in the case.
|
