LAWS(CE)-2006-7-73

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN Vs. CHETAN ENTERPRISES

Decided On July 10, 2006
Commissioner Of Customs, Cochin Appellant
V/S
Chetan Enterprises Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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.