2005 (2) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods imported by the respondents are not liable to pay anti-dumping duty as per Notification No. 128/2001, dated 21-12-2001. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the Notification the Compact Fluorescent Lamps falling under Chapter 85 without choke are liable to anti-dumping duty. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... L where the laboratory stated that the imported goods were only parts of Compact Fluorescent Lamps without Choke. 5. We find that in this case the dispute is whether the respondents are liable to pay anti-dumping duty in respect of the goods imported by them. The notification provides that Compact Fluorescent Lamps falling under Chapter 85 is with Choke or without Choke imported from Republic of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... we find in the decision of Authority for Advance Ruling, the goods was different from the goods imported by the present respondents. 7. In the Bill of Entry respondents declared that the goods in question as glass tubes. The sample taken by the Customs authorities were sent to the ERTL and they informed that they had not received the samples thereafter the same samples were supplied by the impor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X