TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... parts for lamp making", and filed two bills of entries for the clearances of the said good. It was observed by the authorities from the commercial invoice and packing list that the said goods were originally from Peoples Republic of China and the said goods were of Chinese origin. The authorities on examination of the goods came to the conclusion that the import of equal number of gas filled glass tubes and PCB require only manual assembly and fitting to form a complete compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). Compact fluorescent lamps when imported from China, were liable to anti-dumping duty as per the provisions of Section 9A of the Customs Act, 1962 during the relevant period. The appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice directing them to sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the appellant had clearly indicated to the authority that for making this product as complete CFL, further inputs are required and indicated that these two inputs are "Surge Arrestor" and "22 E Resisters". The learned Advocate further points out that the statements of the Indian manufactures relied upon by the Revenue would also indicate that the parts which were imported by them, per se, cannot be termed as CFL until further processing is done. He also drew our attention to Notification No. 138/2002-Cus, dated 10-12-02 and submits that the anti-dumping duty as sought to be imposed by the said notification was in respect of complete CFL and not parts thereof. He also drew our attention to the Office Memorandum of DGAD. He relies upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is seen from the notification that the specified article on which definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed was a complete compact fluorescent lamp and not on a semi-knocked down condition of CFL. It is also seen from the records that DGAD imposes anti-dumping duty on the SKD condition of the specified article as and when it comes to the conclusion that even the parts are also dumped into India. (Notification No. 125/2002-Cus., dated 13-8-03 on non-brass metal flash light). On this factual understanding of the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty, we proceed ahead to decide the issue in this case. It is on record that appellants had imported parts of CFL. The parts have been found as has been declared by the appellant. We find that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from China PR and covered under Anti-Dumping Investigation conducted by the Designated Authority. In this regard, it is clarified that : (a) Anti-dumping duties were recommended/imposed on the following two types of CFLs: (i) Complete, ready to use compact fluorescent lamps wherein choke is integrated within the lamp. (ii) Complete, ready to use compact fluorescent lamps wherein choke is external. (b) Anti-dumping duties were not recommended on parts/components of CFL. (c) "CFL with choke" is complete ready to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re parts of CFL and they are not liable for imposition of anti-dumping duty as per the office memorandum (as reproduced above). 10. Further, we are fortified in our views by the judgments and the order of Tribunal in the case of Philips India Ltd. (supra). We may read the findings : "4. The first issue for consideration is whether Notification No. 128/2001 imposing anti-dumping duty on CFL with choke and CFL without choke is leviable when only substantial parts of the same are imported. The second issue is whether Rules of Interpretation [2(a)] can be invoked while determining whether are not anti-dumping duty is leviable when only part of the specified goods are imported. We agree with die learned Advocate that the levy of ADD w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ier notification and the fact of the current case are similar to the issue which was before the Division Bench. It is noticed that the issue involved in the current case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Philips India Ltd. (supra). 13. As regards the case law relied upon by the learned SDR (Roma International), the issue involved was in respect of the CFL which was of "pin type". The fact of that case and current case before us are not identical, as the goods which were imported in the case of Roma International were totally different and distinct from the goods imported by current appellant, hence the case law does not support the Revenue's case. Accordingly, we hold that the goods imported by t....