2004 (5) TMI 89 - AAR - Customs

Whether the sealed coated tube with filament as per the sample produced by the applicant before us proposed to be imported by them, is not a CFL as is commonly understood in the concerned trade or market and therefore, it will not be liable to anti-dumping duty under the notification No. 138/2002-Cus., dated 10-12-2002?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported coated tubes with filament.
2. Applicability of anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 138/2002-Cus.
3. Interpretation of Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation.
4. Jurisdictional Commissioner's objection based on a previous Tribunal decision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Coated Tubes with Filament
The applicant, M/s. Permalite Electricals (P) Ltd., proposed to import coated tubes with filament, which are components of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL). The key issue was whether these components could be classified as CFL under sub-heading 8539.31 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The applicant contended that the imported items are not CFLs but components thereof, and thus should not attract anti-dumping duty.

2. Applicability of Anti-dumping Duty under Notification No. 138/2002-Cus
The applicant referred to Notification No. 138/2002-Cus., dated 10-12-2002, which imposes anti-dumping duty on CFLs originating from China and Hong Kong. The notification specifies anti-dumping duty on CFLs "without choke" and "with choke." The applicant argued that since they are importing only a component (coated tube with filament) and not the complete CFL, the anti-dumping duty should not apply.

The jurisdictional Commissioner argued that the imported item, although not a complete CFL, has acquired the essential character of a CFL and should thus attract anti-dumping duty as per Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation. The applicant contested this, stating that the notification clearly distinguishes between complete CFLs and components.

3. Interpretation of Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation
Rule 2(a) states that an incomplete or unfinished article that has the essential character of the complete or finished article should be classified as such. The jurisdictional Commissioner relied on this rule to argue that the imported coated tube with filament should be treated as a CFL.

The Authority observed that the General Rules for interpretation aid in classifying goods under different tariff headings but do not impose duty. The notification in question imposes duty on specified articles and must be interpreted strictly. The Authority concluded that even if the imported item could be classified under Chapter 85 due to Rule 2(a), it does not qualify as a CFL as commonly understood in the trade or market.

4. Jurisdictional Commissioner's Objection Based on Previous Tribunal Decision
The jurisdictional Commissioner cited a previous decision by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Philips India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, arguing that the application was barred by Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Authority dismissed this contention, noting that this point should have been raised when deciding whether to accept the application. Furthermore, the goods in the cited case were not identical to those in question.

Conclusion
The Authority ruled that the sealed coated tube with filament proposed to be imported by the applicant is not a CFL as commonly understood in the trade or market. Therefore, it will not be liable to anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 138/2002-Cus., dated 10-12-2002. The Authority also dismissed the jurisdictional Commissioner's objection based on the previous Tribunal decision, stating it was irrelevant at this stage of the proceedings.