Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Commissioner Of Customs vs Chetan Enterprises on 10 July, 2006
ORDER T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the OIA No. 47/2004 dated 30.3.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin.
2. The respondent had filed a Bill of Entry describing the imported goods as 'Saving Lamps (Electrical Goods)' falling under CSH 8539.29. The goods were cleared accepting the above classification. Revenue proceeded against the respondents for recovery of Anti-Dumping Duty imposed on Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) imported from the Peoples Republic of China/Hong Kong. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed an amount of Rs. 2,01,650/- as given in the Show Cause Notice. Later, the Authority realized that some mistakes has been committed in the calculation of duty and issued a corrigendum under Section 154 of the Customs Act raising the demand to Rs. 97,91,176/-. The respondents went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that Section 154 of the Customs Act is for carrying out correction of errors that have crept up in the orders issued. This section does not permit modification of an amount mentioned in the Show Cause Notice. He has relied on a number of decisions of the Tribunal, which hold that confirmed demands cannot traverse beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and the original demand cannot be modified under Section 154. Another point, which has been mentioned, is that Anti-Dumping Duty is leviable on the CFL falling under sub-heading 8539.31. But the impugned items were classified under sub-heading 8539.29 and even in the Adjudication order, the classification of goods has not been changed. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the proceedings against the respondents.
3. Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the examination report of the impugned goods states that they are Compact Fluorescent Lamps. They have given elaborate reasons to show that Anti-Dumping Duty is leviable on them and that the designated authority has powers to impose the levy with retrospective effect.
4. The learned JDR reiterated the Grounds of Appeal.
5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. After the OIO has been issued confirming an amount of Rs. 2,01,650/-, a corrigendum has been issued to enhance the same to Rs. 97,91,176/-. This is highly illegal. We want to make it clear that once an Order-in Original is issued by the Adjudicating Authority, he become functuous officio. He cannot hike the demand by a corrigendum. This amounts to reviewing his own order. It is not correct as per law. The Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in holding that Section 154 of the Customs Act cannot be invoked in the manner in which it has been done by the Adjudicating Authority. Section 154 is only for correction of clerical errors. Hiking a demand of Rs. 2,01,650/- to Rs. 97,91,176/- is by no stretch of imagination can be called as a correction of a clerical error. Another point to be noted is the Adjudicating Authority, though demanding Anti-Dumping Duty, has not changed the classification claimed by the respondents and accepted by the Department in the original order of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) has passed an order, which is legal and proper. A similar issue has been dealt with by this bench in the case of CC, Cochin v. Akash Trading Co. There are no merits in Revenue's appeal. Therefore, the same is rejected by upholding the impugned OIA.
Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing.