Erroneous refund revision and assembled-unit tariff treatment determine customs limitation and countervailing duty liability.

The revisional limitation in Section 131(5) of the Customs Act applies to non-levy and short-levy, but not to an erroneous refund; a suo motu revision cancelling a refund already granted on appeal was therefore not time-barred. For countervailing duty, the relevant tariff test was whether the imported plate freezer was ordinarily sold as a ready assembled unit, not whether every component arrived together. On the stated record, the consignment answered that description, so the refund of countervailing duty was not justified and the assessment could stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the time-limit in Section 131(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 applied to suo motu revision of an order granting erroneous refund; and (ii) whether the imported plate freezer was liable to countervailing duty as an assembled unit.

Issue (i): whether the time-limit in Section 131(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 applied to suo motu revision of an order granting erroneous refund

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between non-levy, short-levy, and erroneous refund. Limitation under Section 131(5) was confined to revision in cases of non-levy or short-levy and did not extend to erroneous refund. The revisional order under Section 131(3) concerned cancellation of a refund already granted on appeal and therefore fell within the category of erroneous refund.

Conclusion: The limitation in Section 131(5) did not bar the suo motu revision, and the revisional order was valid.

Issue (ii): whether the imported plate freezer was liable to countervailing duty as an assembled unit

Analysis: The materials showed that the commodity imported was an Amerio plate freezer with essential parts, though certain components were acquired separately. For tariff purposes, the relevant test was whether the article was ordinarily sold as a ready assembled unit, not whether every component was imported together. The record supported the view that the consignment was such an assembled unit, and the assessment at the lower rate was inconsistent with the later claim for refund.

Conclusion: The refund of countervailing duty was not justified on merits.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was liable to be dismissed and the refund order set aside, with the assessment and duty levy restored.

Ratio Decidendi: The limitation in the revisional provision governing non-levy and short-levy does not apply to revision of an erroneous refund, and liability to countervailing duty depends on whether the imported goods are ordinarily sold as an assembled unit.

---