GAGAN INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeals require to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit we proceed to deal with the appeals.

(2.) THE appellants had imported CF Lamps without choke from China during August -December, 2002 without payment of anti -dumping duty, which was leviable on the said goods under Notification No. 128/2001 -Cus. dated 21.12.2001 read with Notification No. 138/2002 -Cus. dated 10.12.2002. The goods were provisionally cleared against bonds executed by the importers, 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 letters to the importers (appellants) proposing "finalisation of provisional assessments under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act" and directing the parties to submit documents for such finalisation. The parties did not respond to these letters. Later on, the Assistant Commissioner passed orders "finalising assessments under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act" and calling upon the assessees to pay the anti -dumping duty on the goods imported by them. These orders were taken in appeal to 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. When it was found that this direction was not complied with, the appellate authority dismissed the assessees' appeals on the ground of non -compliance with Section 129E. The orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were taken in appeal to this Tribunal. We remanded the cases to learned Commissioner (Appeals) by Final Order No. 809 -815/2005 dated 07.06.2005, 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.

(3.) IT appears from the records that learned Commissioner (Appeals) heard Counsel for the assessees on 25.01.2006 and subsequently passed an interim order directing them to predeposit 75% of the respective amounts of duty within the time stipulated in this behalf. None of the parties deposited any amount. The appellate authority dismissed their appeals in the same manner it did in the earlier round of litigation. Hence the present appeals.