2013 (2) TMI 171 - AT - Customs

Import Audio Cassettes and Digital Video Discs - Customs Notification No. 24/2005 dated 01.03.2005 - Goods were subject to MRP based CVD - DGFT Notification No. 44/(Re-2000)/1997 - Public notice No. 27/2000 - Commissioner (Appeals) directly entertained the appeal of the respondent for excess payment of custom duty - The clerical error corrected u/s 154 of the Customs Act by Commissioner (Appeals) Held that - Ongoing through the provisions of Section 154 of the Customs Act, it is noticed that the correction can be carried out by the officer who had issued the order. It is also not clear from the order-in-appeal that on which documents or evidence he has relied upon to come to the conclusion that there were clerical errors in the order of assessment issued by the lower authority. Moreover, the goods which are assessed by the said order of assessment have already been cleared by the respondent. - In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) decision allowing correction of clerical error under Section 154 of the Customs Act.
- Proper procedure for correction of clerical errors in customs assessment.
- Requirement of documentary evidence to prove clerical errors in customs assessment.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 604(AC/GR-VB)/2009(JNCH) dated 28.10.2009. The case involved the import of Audio Cassettes and Digital Video Discs from U.A.E. by M/s. Imation India Pvt. Ltd. The Bill of Entry was assessed with Nil basic duty but subject to MRP based CVD. The respondent appealed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) claiming clerical error in the assessment, specifically regarding the calculation of MRP for certain items in the Bill of Entry.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that clerical errors can be corrected under Section 154 of the Customs Act. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide any documentary evidence or basis for accepting the clerical error claim. The Revenue relied on a previous case law to support their argument that assessment orders cannot be amended under Section 154 of the Customs Act before goods clearance.

3. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) directly entertained the appeal without the respondent approaching the officer who assessed the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not specify any documents or evidence supporting the existence of clerical errors in the assessment. Moreover, the goods in question had already been cleared by the respondent. In the absence of documentary evidence proving clerical errors, the Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to be incorrect and set aside the impugned order.

4. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of following proper procedures for correcting clerical errors in customs assessments. It emphasized the necessity of providing documentary evidence to substantiate claims of clerical errors. The judgment clarified that correction under Section 154 of the Customs Act should be carried out by the assessing officer and not directly by the appellate authority. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and evidentiary standards in customs assessment corrections.