2005 (7) TMI 166 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Orders-in-Appeal regarding anti-dumping duty on CFL lamps.

Analysis:
1. Facts: Two appeals filed by the Revenue against Orders-in-Appeal dated 21-10-2003. Goods classified under Chapter 8539, later anti-dumping duty imposed by Notification No. 138/2002-Cus.

2. Legal Grounds: Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demands citing chargeability of duty when goods enter India. Revenue argues that anti-dumping duty can be levied retrospectively from the date of provisional duty imposition.

3. Revenue's Argument: Revenue contends that anti-dumping duty can be levied retrospectively as per Notification No. 138/2002. Refers to Supreme Court's decision in ITW Signode India Ltd. case supporting retrospective effect for curative statutes.

4. Respondents' Argument: Respondents rely on Customs Tariff Rules, stating provisional duty valid for 6 months, extendable to 9 months on request. Argue that as no extension was granted, duty lapsed when goods were imported, making retrospective levy invalid.

5. Decision: Tribunal upholds Commissioner's decision, finding no charging provision for levy of anti-dumping duty during the interregnum period. Holds final anti-dumping duty notification contradictory to Rules 13 and 20. Rejects Revenue's appeals, emphasizing duty's non-chargeability during import.

This detailed analysis covers the issues, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the appeal against the anti-dumping duty on CFL lamps.