COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. CHOICE INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the Department against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai made in Final Order No.789/2007 dated 27.6.2007 along with Stay Order No.645/2007.

(2.) THE appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal came to be filed against the demand of anti -dumping duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL, for short) imported by the respondent herein and cleared under flour Bills of Entry during November -December 2002. The CFLs are of Chinese origin and are governed by two notifications viz., Notification No.128/2001 dated 21.12.2001 (Provisional) and Notification NO.138/2002 dated 10.12.2002 (final). The goods imported by the respondent were provisionally cleared under Section 18(1) of the Act against the bonds executed by the importer for a period of six months. The bonds were not renewed nor were any such renewal requisitioned by the Department. Further, no show cause notice was issued by the Department. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, however, issued a letter to the importer proposing finalisation of provisional assessments under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act and ultimately passed an order finalising assessment and called upon the importer to pay anti -dumping duty on the goods imported by them. The importer has taken the order on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who directed the importer to pre -deposit the entire amount of the duty for the purpose of Section 129E of the Customs Act. As the order has not been complied with, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the assessee's appeal. The said order was taken on appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the case after setting aside the order of dismissal of the main appeal as well as the interim order directing the importer to pre -deposit the entire amount of anti -dumping duty with direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass fresh speaking order on the assessee's stay application in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. On remand, the appellate authority passed an interim order directing the importer to pre -deposit 75 percent of the amount of duty within the time stipulated by it. Here again, the interim order has not been complied with. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal for failure of pre -deposit. Once again that order has been carried to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the order of the Commissioner with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the importer's appeal on merits without insisting on any pre -deposit. The said order has been passed by the Tribunal following its earlier order dated 4.1.2007 made in Final Order No.14 -20/2007.

(3.) WE heard the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials on record.