9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 258 - AT - CustomsRefund of Antidumping duty - Appellant had wrongly typed the adjudication No. as 108 which should have been correctly typed as - /08 - HELD THAT - The appeal number, file number, date of order, authority passing the order and the party being same, error in typing out a wrong appeal number would not have any impact on the decision rendered by this Tribunal in respect of the said order and, therefore, there is no requirement of agitating the same matter again before this Forum. Now coming to the legality of the order subsequently passed through an addendum/corrigendum appropriating the amount paid by the Appellant towards Antidumping duty etc., it can be said that the said order is passed without authority of the law since it is a settled principle of law, as has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA ORS VERSUS S.N. GOYAL 2008 (5) TMI 649 - SUPREME COURT and HARI SINGH MANN VERSUS HARBHAJAN SINGH BAJWA 2000 (11) TMI 1221 - SUPREME COURT and in many other decisions, that the court becomes functus officio the movement an official order disposing of case is signed and such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or grammatical error while a Quasi-Judicial Authority will become functus officio only when its order is pronounced, or published/notified or communicated (put in the course of transmission) to the party concerned. Such invalid order passed subsequent to the order signed, pronounced and communicated has to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Challenging legality of order passed by Commissioner of Customs; Imposition of Antidumping duty; Confiscation of goods; Redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act; Refund of Antidumping duty; Addendum/corrigendum appropriating duty; Typing error in adjudication order number; Challenge of corrigendum; Validity of Tribunal's order; Legality of subsequent addendum/corrigendum appropriating duty. Analysis: In this case, the Appellant challenged the legality of an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs concerning the imposition of Antidumping duty on glazed/polished porcelain tiles imported in 2008. The Appellant filed two bills of entries in March 2008, paid the duty, and participated in the adjudication process. The Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods, imposed a redemption fine, and penalty under the Customs Act. The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal and sought a refund of the duty. However, confusion arose regarding the order number, leading to a series of correspondences and discovery of a corrigendum issued by the Commissioner. The Appellant contested the legality of this corrigendum. During the hearing, the Appellant's counsel pointed out a typing error in the adjudication order number, which led to confusion. The Respondent argued that since no appeal order was available against the corrigendum, the Appellant's claim for refund was rightly rejected. The Tribunal noted the submissions and clarified that the error in the appeal number did not impact its decision on the order. The Tribunal upheld its previous order against the Commissioner's decision dated 25.04.2008 in favor of the Appellant. Regarding the subsequent addendum/corrigendum appropriating the duty paid by the Appellant, the Tribunal found it to be passed without legal authority. Citing legal principles established by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that such orders cannot be altered once signed, pronounced, and communicated. Since the Tribunal had already ruled against the Revenue's allegation regarding the origin of the goods, the confirmation and appropriation of duty through the corrigendum were deemed invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the addendum/corrigendum. In the final order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent of nullifying the addendum/corrigendum issued after the Commissioner's original order. The Tribunal affirmed its decision against the Commissioner's order dated 25.04.2008, granting the Appellant entitlement to any consequential relief.
|
