By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAR 16, 2016: THE appellant imported one consignment declaring goods as "Energy Saving Glass Tubes Burner U Shape 32 W (parts of CFL)", classifiable under CTH 85399090 from China. During the examination of the container, it was found that the goods were basically combination (group) of 4 uniform sized 2-U shaped sealed CFL loosely packed and placed in an eight-hole plastic stand in a way so that each 2-U sealed CFL burner could be separated easily. The appellant declared this combination of four loosely packed 2-U shape sealed glass tube burner as a single entity of U shape 32 Watt CFL burner. However, it is alleged that one 2-U shaped sealed CFL loosely packed. The above description would be independently used for manufacture of CFL having "less than 26 Watt" and therefore attract anti dumping duty in terms of Notification No.55/2009-Cus, dated 26.05.2009. Consequently, anti-dumping duty of Rs.87,59,706/- was confirmed with fine and penalty.

The appellant produced samples before the Tribunal and contended that the goods are to be assessed as presented and it is no doubt that the goods are combination of 4 X 2-U tube, which is comprising of 32W by making one combination of energy saving glass tube burner. These energy saving burners of 32W are easily available in the market and also produced one manufacture of the same, i.e., M/s. Every Day and produced the photographs thereof.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held:

+ From the photographs, it is seen that the item is a combination of 4 U-tubes joint together to make a tube of 32W, which can be used as one lamp and can be operated by one PCBs and same is marketable in the market and easily available in the market as per the evidences produced by the appellant and cannot be segregated without breakage/wastage.

+ The item in question as imported by the appellant is declared correctly as "Energy saving 32W 4 U shaped tubes" as it is an item of 32W, therefore the same does not come under the purview of Notification No.55/2009-Cus, dated 26.05.2009 to demand anti-dumping duty. It is held that no anti-dumping duty is leviable on the item in question imported by the appellant. Consequently, the goods are not liable for confiscation and no penalty is imposable on the appellant.

Thus, the appeal filed by the importer was allowed.

(See 2016-TIOL-621-CESTAT-DEL)