COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants import raw sugar for conversion into white sugar under DEEC Scheme, through Tuticorin Port. In the Bill of Entries for importing raw sugar/CVD has been shown as 16% as per Tariff Heading 1701.90. The bill of entries were in the year 2004. In the year 2006, they gave a letter to the appellant referring to Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985 that the import of raw sugar satisfy the above criteria and therefore, CVD would be only Rs. 85/- per quintal or Rs. 850/- per Metric Ton. Therefore, they requested that a correction may be made in all the above Bill of Entries with the Central Excise Classification for CVD/Additional duty as 170139, and Rs. 85/- per Quintal or Rs. 850/- per Metric Ton of Raw Sugar for Additional Duty/CVD instead of 16% and in this context, they invited attention to Section 149 of the Customs Act, under which an amendment in the Bill of Entry or Shipping Bill is authorized, even after the import of goods have been cleared on the basis of the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time of clearance of goods.

(2.) This was rejected on the ground that the amendment may lead to re-quantification of foregone amount, which will amount to re-assessment and no amendment is possible. Against, that, appeals, had been filed and they had been dismissed on the ground that the decision, of the original authority did not warrant any interference. The appellate authority had relied on the following decisions:

(3.) Thereafter, the respondents went to Customs, Excise and Service Tex Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellate Tribunal"). The appellants therein had claimed that the amendment to the Bills of Entry could be allowed with reference to the Central Excise Tariff and the documents that were in existence at the time of assessment of the impugned Bills of Entry. The Appellate Tribunal, while allowing the appeal, had held that the original authority declined the permission sought to make the amendment solely on the ground that the same would entail re-quantification of the duty leading to a lower amount of duty foregone and that this is not a valid ground to deny an importer a facility provided in the Act. Against that, these two appeals have been filed.