2020 (4) TMI 449 - AT - Customs

Anti-Dumping Duty on CFL Lamp Imports from China Set Aside; Tribunal Emphasizes Procedural Fairness and Legal Precedents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned demand for Anti-Dumping Duty on CFL lamp imports from China, ruling that the duty could not be levied during the ... Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - effective date of notifications - whether Anti-Dumping Duty can be levied during the interregnum period from 21.06.2002 to 09.12.2002, i.e., from the end date of provisional Anti-Dumping Duty Notification and the imposition of final Anti-Dumping Duty by subsequent Notification? HELD THAT:- An identical issue came up before the Division Bench of this very Tribunal in the case of M/s. Picasso Overseas v. Commissioner of Cus. (Imports), Chennai [2017 (10) TMI 366 - CESTAT CHENNAI] after following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. G.M. Exports [2015 (9) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT], has set aside the demand towards Anti-Dumping Duty. There are no justifiable reasons to deviate from the decision since the Revenue has not been able to distinguish the above case, nor has it filed any contrary decisions - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Validity of Anti-Dumping Duty Notification2. Compliance with pre-deposit orders3. Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty during an interregnum periodIssue 1: Validity of Anti-Dumping Duty NotificationThe case involved the importation of CFL lamps from China during a specific period. The appellant paid duty under provisional assessment pending clarification on the Anti-Dumping Duty Notification. Subsequently, a final Notification was issued, and the Department demanded differential duty due to the time gap. The appellant failed to attend hearings, leading to Orders-in-Original confirming the demand. Appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders. The Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh orders on stay applications.Issue 2: Compliance with Pre-Deposit OrdersIn de novo appeal proceedings, the Commissioner directed the appellant to pre-deposit 75% of the demanded amount. However, the appellant did not comply and sought modification after the compliance period. The appeals were rejected for non-compliance, leading to further appeals and directions to pass speaking orders on merit without insisting on pre-deposit.Issue 3: Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty during Interregnum PeriodThe main issue to be decided was whether Anti-Dumping Duty could be levied during the period between provisional and final Notifications. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support their argument. The Tribunal, following a previous decision and the Supreme Court ruling, set aside the demand for Anti-Dumping Duty, as the Revenue failed to distinguish the case or provide contrary decisions.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the impugned demand for Anti-Dumping Duty could not be sustained, setting aside the order and demand. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per the law. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Anti-Dumping Duty Notification and relevant legal precedents, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and procedural requirements.