CHOICE INTERNATIONAL Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself should be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we take up the appeal.

(2.) THE appeal is against demand of anti -dumping duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL, for short) imported by the appellants and cleared under four Bills of Entry during November -December 2002. The CFLs are of Chinese origin and hence attracted two Notifications viz. Notification No. 128/2001 dt. 21.12.2001 (provisional) and Notification No. 138/2002 dt. 10.12.2002 (final). The goods were provisionally cleared against bonds executed by the importer, which were valid for 6 months. The bonds were not renewed, nor was any such renewal requisitioned. No show -cause notice was issued by the department. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs, however, issued a letter to the party proposing 'finalization of provisional assessments under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act' and directing them to submit documents for such 'finalization'. The party did not respond to this letter. Later on, the Assistant Commissioner passed order 'finalizing assessments under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act' and calling upon the assessee to pay the anti -dumping duty on the goods imported by them. This order was taken in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate authority directed the appellants to predeposit the entire amount of duty for the purpose of Section 129E of the Customs Act and, having found no evidence of predeposit, the appellate authority dismissed the assessee's appeal on the ground of non -compliance with Section 129E. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was taken in appeal to this Tribunal and we remanded the case, along with similar other cases, to ld. Commissioner (Appeals) by Final Order No. 809 -815/2005 dt. 7.6.2005, the operative part of which reads as under: In the result, we set aside the impugned order as well as the interim orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) to pass fresh speaking order on the assessees' stay applications in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice and having regard to our observations noted hereinbefore. The authority shall proceed to deal with the assessees' appeals in accordance with law, subject to the results of their stay applications. Needless to say that, in all such proceedings, the parties shall be given reasonable opportunities of being heard. 2. It appears from the records that the appellate authority heard counsel for the assessee and subsequently passed an interim order directing them to predeposit 75% of the amount of duty within the time stipulated by it. The appellants did not deposit this amount. The appellate authority dismissed their appeal for want of predeposit. Hence the present appeal. We have heard ld.Counsel for the appellants and ld. SDR for the Revenue.

(3.) LD . counsel has pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed similar orders in the cases of other CFL importers and that such orders were taken in appeal to this Tribunal. It is submitted that those appeals have been allowed by way of remand with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the assessees' appeals on merits without insisting on predeposit. Ld.counsel produces a copy of the relevant final order (Final Order No. 14 -20/2007 dt 4.1.2007).