9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y leviable under Customs Notification No. 18/2002-Cus. dated 20-12-2002. The investigation revealed that M/s. SEPL were importing glass tubes with base from China at Kandla port and holders with wire/populated PCB of various watts of CFLs from China at Mumbai. It further appeared that the glass tube base, holders with wire and populated PCB imported by M/s. SEPL together constituted CFL in semi-knocked down condition and as per Rule 2(a) of General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are classifiable under CTH No. 859110 and that Anti-Dumping Duty is leviable on them. However, M/s. SEPL imported the same as parts of CFL claiming classification under CTH No. 8599010 in order to evade anti-dumping duty. M/s. SEPL imported glass tubes with base at Kandla and holder with wire/populated PCB at Mumbai from the same manufacturer from China. M/s. SEPL entered into negotiation for purchase of CFL as a whole but directed the supplier to ship these consignments at two different ports. It was however admitted that they assembled the components of CFL by simply soldering glass tube with base imported at Kandla port and holder with wire and populated PCB imported at Mumbai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st were also included. DGAD issued preliminary findings under Notification No. 34/1/2001-DGAD dated 2-11-2001 recommending imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty pending final determination on all imports of CFL originating in or exported from China PR and Hong Kong. On the basis of these findings of DGAD, Notification No. 128/2001-Cus dated 21-12-2001 was issued under Section 9A(2) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 imposing Anti-Dumping Duty on CFL faling under Chapter 85 imported into India. This levy was effective up to 20-6-2002. On completion of investigation, Notification No. 138/2002-Cus dated 10-12-2002 was issued imposing anti-dumping duty with effect from 21-12-2001. Simultaneously by Notification No. 139/2002-Cus., dated 10-12-2002, Notification 128/01-Cus dated 21-12-01 was rescinded. It is the contention of ld. Advocate that the Notification issued by both Anti-Dumping Authority and the Ministry of Commerce refers to the product as CFL and not CFLs whether assembled or non-assembled or CKD condition which makes it clear that the anti-dumping duty was not leviable in respect of CFLs which were imported in SKD condition. However on various representations received from do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ony India Ltd. - 2008 (231) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) = 2008-TIOL-183-SC-CUS. The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Phoenix International Ltd. - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.) was not applicable as in that case the imports were made in the same container in same port on same day and the policy placed restriction on all consumer goods whether in SKD/CKD condition or ready to assembled sets or in finished form but the intention was always to import complete sets only and elaborate steps were taken to overcome the restriction imposed by the policy. Similarly Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Sharp Business Machines - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 640 (S.C.) is distinguishable as in that case the assessee was authorized to import only 62% of the components as per policy but assessee imported 100% components. 6. In support of their contention that Interpretation Rule 2(a) does not apply to Notification issued under Anti-Dumping Duty, he referred to the decision of Tribunal in the case of Anchor Daewoo Industries Ltd. v. CC, Kandla - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 230 (T) wherein also the importer has filed two Bill of Entries, one for parts making electronic lamps and other parts of lamp for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for one hour on high voltage and for another one hour on low voltage. After such testing the lamps are packed in printed box and MRP is affixed. Lot-wise luminous test is also done by them with help of machinery installed in their plant. This report therefore confirms that elaborate process is undertaken at the manufacturing premises and after assembly CFLs are cleared on payment Central Excise duty. In view of this there is no case for imposing anti-dumping duty. 8. Ld. Jt. CDR however maintains that Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rules is applicable in the present case and referred to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maestro Motors Ltd. - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) wherein it was held that when in a notification, exemption is with reference to an item in the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, then the Interpretative Rules will equally apply to such notification. However if according to language of notification an item is specifically exempted, then exemption would be available even though for purposes of classification it may be considered to be something else. He also places reliance on Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Phoenix Internati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
