2008 (12) TMI 196 - AT - Customs

Anti dumping duty electric bulbs parts of CFL versus complete compact fluorescent lamps held that - it is revealed from the adjudication order that the goods in question have not been acquiring PCBs Metal caps plastic caps paper sleeves etc. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that sleeves and glass tubes with filament is one among these components which go into making complete CFL and it is constituted only 44% of the total cost of complete CFL. Thus there is no dispute that the respondents imported parts of CFL - Board s Circular No. 528/53/2007-Cus. (TU) dated 25-10-2007 whereby it is clarified that Anti-dumping duty imposed under Notification No. 138/2002-Cus. (supra) does not apply to the parts/components on CFL

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal, Classification of imported goods as parts of CFL, Applicability of Anti-dumping duty on imported goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 51/Cus/MRT-II/2005, challenging the classification of imported goods declared as electric bulb parts (parts of CFL) under Customs Tariff Heading 85393110. The adjudicating authority had imposed Anti-dumping duty on the goods, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon reviewing the records, it was noted that the imported goods did not include certain components like PCBs, Metal caps, plastic caps, paper sleeves, etc., which are essential parts of a complete CFL. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that the imported goods constituted only 44% of the total cost of a complete CFL, confirming that they were indeed parts of CFL.

The respondent's advocate referred to Board's Circular No. 528/53/2007-Cus. (TU) and Tribunal decisions, emphasizing that Anti-dumping duty does not apply to parts/components of CFL but only to complete CFLs ready for use. The Revenue, however, cited Notification No. 126/2008-Cus., asserting that Anti-dumping duty was applicable to the importation of CFL parts.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents, concluded that the issue had already been settled by the Board's Circular and previous Tribunal decisions. It was established that no Anti-dumping duty was leviable on parts of CFL during the relevant period. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant notifications, circulars, and precedents, ultimately affirming that Anti-dumping duty did not apply to the imported goods classified as parts of CFL. The judgment provided clarity on the classification and duty implications concerning such goods, ensuring consistency with established legal interpretations and decisions.