2004 (12) TMI 471 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application by Revenue against Commissioner's order setting aside lower authority's decision on anti-dumping duty.
2. Import of goods under DEEC Scheme with incorrect licenses leading to anti-dumping duty issue.
3. Permission to amend documents post-clearance under Section 149 of the Customs Act.
4. Lower authority's refusal to allow amendment and upholding of anti-dumping duty demand.
5. Commissioner's decision allowing substitution of licenses post-clearance based on Tribunal's precedent.
6. Revenue's appeal against Commissioner's decision for stay.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a Revenue's application for stay against the Commissioner's order that overturned the lower authority's decision regarding anti-dumping duty on imported goods. The Commissioner set aside the initial order, prompting the Revenue to seek a stay.

2. The respondent imported goods under the DEEC Scheme with licenses not eligible for exemption from anti-dumping duty. The Department later realized the error and demanded the duty not levied on clearances under Deemed Export Scheme licenses, leading to a dispute.

3. The key issue was the respondent's plea to amend the documents post-clearance under Section 149 of the Customs Act. The lower authority denied this request, citing it as an afterthought and stating that documents cannot be amended after goods are cleared, ultimately upholding the duty demand.

4. The Commissioner, however, allowed the substitution of licenses even after goods clearance, relying on the Tribunal's precedent in Tas Engg Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner and other decisions. This decision favored the respondent's appeal against the duty demand.

5. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's application for a stay. The Tribunal reiterated that license substitution post-clearance is permissible, aligning with its previous rulings. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's application for a stay.

6. The Revenue's grounds for appeal against the Commissioner's decision mirrored those of the lower authority. However, the Tribunal found no case for a stay based on the established principle of license substitution post-clearance. As a result, the application for a stay was dismissed.