MSE TRADING CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are seven applications before us, among which three figure in today's list and the remaining four with the connected appeals having been suo motu taken up by the Bench having regard to the fact that all the cases emanate from a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

(2.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that all the seven appeals require to be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we proceed to deal with the appeals.

(3.) THESE appeals are against an order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the assessees' appeals (filed against adverse orders of the original authority) on the sole ground of non -compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. It appears from the records and the submissions of both sides that most of these appellants had imported "compact fluorescent lamps" (otherwise called 'energy saving lamps') and a few of them imported 'parts' of such lamps. One of the appellants imported 'night lamps' also. All these imports were from China. Energy saving lamps imported from China attracted Anti Dumping Duty (AD duty) under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act. The provisional Notification proposing such duty is "Notification No. 128/2001 -Cus. dt 21.12.2001 issued by the Central Government. This Notification sought to levy AD duty on energy saving lamps imported from China for a period of 6 months. This period expired on 20.6.02. Later on, Notification No. 138/02 -Cus. dt. 10.12.02 was issued by Central Govt., finalising the rate of AD duty leviable on the above goods for a period of 5 years from the date of issue of the earlier Notification. The subject imports were made between 20.6.02 and 10.12.02 and no AD duty was paid on the goods. However, in respect of each consignment cleared under the relevant Bill of Entry, the importer executed a bond for a period of 6 months, wherein it was acknowledged by both sides that the assessment (in terms of Notification No. 128/01 -Cus.) would be provisional. Upon expiry of the bond period, no fresh bond was asked for, nor produced by any of the importers. The original authority passed orders demanding AD duty from the parties concerned, in terms of the final Notification. These orders were ex parte orders as the assessees did not avail the opportunities offered by the authority, for some reason or the other. These orders were taken in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants also filed applications for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amounts of duty demanded by the lower authority. Apparently, again, the opportunities offered by the appellate authority to the parties were also not availed of and, consequently, the stay applications came to be disposed of by interim orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), ex parte. We have seen copies of these interim orders in some of these files, and these are pari materia with one another. One of these interim orders reads as under : This is an appeal by M/s. Gagan International Associates, New Delhi against the Order -in -Original No. 2182/2004 vide which Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group 5B) has held that