Commissioner of Customs Vs Isha Exim (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that the scope of review being very limited, the review application is dismissed as there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment. Writ petition disposed of, accordingly.
Facts- This Court, after hearing the arguments made on either side, vide its judgment dated 06.12.2024 upheld the findings of the Advance Ruling Authority made in its Ruling dated 31.03.2017. Initially, when the review petitioners preferred an appeal before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), New Delhi, that appeal stood rejected by the concerned Authority as ‘not admissible’ and as ‘non maintainable’. Against the said order of rejection by the AAR, when the review petitioners filed writ petition, the same came to be dismissed, thereby again upholding the Advance Ruling dated 31.03.2017 and the classification of the goods imported / sought to be imported by the Importer/respondent herein is under Chapter 21 and not under Chapter 8 of the Customs Tariff Heading.
Conclusion- Held that the grounds of the writ appeal are sought to be re-argued in these review applications. There is no error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment. The scope of review being very limited, we are not inclined to delve into the grounds of review which were already dealt with by us in the impugned judgment. If such practice is adopted, then it will amount to rehearing the appeal itself. Having failed before the Adjudicating Authority and before the First Bench of this Court, the review applicants are still harping on the same argument, which was negatived consistently. Further, considering the fact that the detained goods are perishable in nature, we direct the review applicants to comply with the direction issued in the impugned judgment forthwith. Accordingly, the Review Applications stand dismissed.
