9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the demand of anti-dumping duty. 2. Compliance with Section 28(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Jurisdictional error in issuing a corrigendum. Issue 1 - Validity of the demand of anti-dumping duty: The original authority had demanded anti-dumping duty from the appellants for a consignment of compact florescent lamps. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhancement of demand but sustained the original demand. The appellate authority found that the order of adjudication was annulled, but the effect was modified by the Commissioner (Appeals) through a corrigendum. The appellate tribunal noted that the corrigendum was issued without the power of review, and it was determined that the impugned order was an open remand. The tribunal clarified that the purpose of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not to set aside the demand but to direct the original authority to provide a valid reason for the delay in passing the order. Issue 2 - Compliance with Section 28(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962: The Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the case to the lower authority to revisit the issue of why it was not possible to determine the duty within the specified period as per Section 28(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellate tribunal found that while the judicial intent was clear, the means adopted by the appellate authority, such as issuing a corrigendum to the final order, was not legally sanctioned. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. Issue 3 - Jurisdictional error in issuing a corrigendum: The appellate tribunal concluded that the corrigendum issued by the lower appellate authority was not within the power of review and was not legally sanctioned. As a result, the tribunal corrected the jurisdictional error by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case for a fresh speaking order in compliance with the law, ensuring the party is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the case was sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh order in accordance with the law, correcting the jurisdictional error in the process.
|
