2008 (2) TMI 246 - HC - Customs

Levy of anti-dumping duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL), retrospectively Tribunal in its earlier order in similar issue has decided in favour of assessee that earlier order has not been modified or altered by any Court - Even assuming that the Department has filed an appeal against the said order that would not by itself is a reason for not following the order of the Tribunal hence in view of that order revenue appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of anti-dumping duty on imported Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) under two notifications - Provisional clearance under Section 18(1) of the Customs Act - Failure to renew bonds or issue show cause notice - Finalization of assessment by Assistant Commissioner - Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Direction to pre-deposit duty - Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance - Remand by Tribunal - Setting aside pre-deposit requirement - Dismissal of appeal by Appellate Authority - Tribunal's order to dispose of appeal on merits without pre-deposit - Challenge of Tribunal's order by Revenue - Tribunal's reliance on earlier order - Judicial consistency - Power of Tribunal under Section 129B of the Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal pertained to the demand of anti-dumping duty on CFLs imported by the respondent and cleared under two notifications. The goods were provisionally cleared under Section 18(1) of the Customs Act against bonds, which were not renewed, and no show cause notice was issued. The Assistant Commissioner finalized the assessment and demanded anti-dumping duty without issuing a show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the importer to pre-deposit the duty, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance. The Tribunal remanded the case, setting aside the pre-deposit requirement and directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit, citing judicial consistency and legal issues regarding anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal found a strong prima facie case against the retrospective levy of anti-dumping duty, relying on its earlier order, which had not been challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal's order was deemed valid under Section 129B of the Act, and the argument of huge revenue involved was not considered sufficient to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal's reasoning highlighted the legal issues surrounding the finalization of provisional assessments under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, the absence of a charging provision for provisional anti-dumping duty, and the repugnancy of a notification determining final anti-dumping duty with retrospective effect to the Anti-dumping Rules. The Tribunal emphasized the need for judicial consistency and noted that the Department's appeal against its earlier order did not invalidate the order or prevent its application. The Tribunal's order was considered valid based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as well as its authority under Section 129B of the Act. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the pre-deposit requirement and allow the appeal to be heard on merits without pre-deposit was upheld, emphasizing the importance of following legal precedents and ensuring fair treatment of the importer.

The Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the collection of revenue could have been pursued through the Commissioner (Appeals) without delaying the disposal of the main appeal on merits. The argument regarding the significant revenue involved was not deemed sufficient grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The decision highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and respecting the Tribunal's authority in adjudicating matters related to anti-dumping duty and customs assessments.