ORDER
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. The appellant imported ‘discharge tube mounted on shell cover’ and ‘plastic cone 14 W’ and sought clearance under bill of entry No. 256748 under another Bill of Entry No. 256746 they sought clearance of discharge tube mounted on shell. The goods were imported from China they were examined on first check basis and they were found to be tubes of Compact Florescent Lamps (CFLs). Under Notification No. 128/200i-Cus. dt. 21.12.2001 CFLs imported from and originated in or from China and Hongkong are liable for Anti-dumping duty. The specified product on which anti-dumping duty (ADD)is leviable is CFL with Choke and CFL without Choke. The department held that even though what were imported were only parts of CFL they would still attract ADD under notification above cited. The importers argued that what they imported are only parts of CFL meant for further manufacture of CFLs. The Revenue’s contention is that imported goods had obtained the essential characteristics of a CFL and under Rule 2(a) of interpretative rules goods which have obtained the essential character of finished goods should be assessed under the appropriate heading as complete goods. The lower authority who adjudicated the case held the part of CFL thus imported are liable for anti-dumpting duty under Notification No. 128/2001 in addition to the normal duties leviable under the Customs Tariff Act 1975. The Commissioner (A) upheld the order of the lower authority.
2. His, findings are the main defence of the appellants is that they are importing only a few components of CFLs whereas the contention of the department is that the so-called components are nothing but a complete item known as CFL and only a very few minor parts are required to be fitted after importation. I find that no solid evidence has been produced by the appellants to contradict this version of the adjudicating authority. I also do not agree with the view that Rules of Interpretation are not relevant in the instant case as it is not a matter of classification”.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The first issue for consideration is whether Notification No. 128/2001 imposing anti-dumping duty on CFL with choke and CFL without choke is leviable when only substantial parts of the same are imported. The second issue is whether Rules of Interpretation (2(a)) can be invoked while determining whether are not anti-dumping duty is leviable when only part of the specified goods are imported. We agree with the learned advocate that the levy of ADD was only in respect of “product under consideration” by the appropriate anti-dumping authority. The “product under consideration” which led to the issuance of above notification was CFL with all electronic components. It is obvious that what has been imported is not a complete CFL with all electronic components. The notification levied ADD on the specified product under consideration by the authority. The specified product is stated to be CFL with one or more glass tubes and which have all lighting elements, all electronic components and cap integrated in the lamp foot. Compact with CFL without choke or ballast are also included”. The question whether rules of interpretation can be invoked to determine the scope of a notification imposing ADD has been carefully examined by us. That a notification should be construed strictly is an accepted position in law. It is not possible to interpolate words into a notification. Since the notification imposes ADD only on CFL, one will have to see whether what is imported is CFL at all. It has been brought out that the importers in addition to the imported parts procured local components up to a certain value to manufacture CFLs. If the intention of the Anti-dumping authority is to levy ADD on parts of CFL as well the notification should clearly say so.
5. In view of what has been observed above, we are of the opinion that what is imported are only parts of CFL and is not CFL as such. The said notification is attracted only when CFL with choke or without choke is imported. The appeal is allowed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside.
(Pronounced in Court)