https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49139 The authority held that the Assistant Collector could revise an earlier drawback claim and recover drawback wrongly allowed under Rule 14 once the decision had been made and communicated, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. It further held that bright stainless steel bars fell within sub-serial No. 3606 because the phrase "all types" covered stainless steel, "steel" in the Schedule included stainless steel unless excluded, and the specific description of bright steel bars prevailed over the general residual entry for articles. The 1-6-1989 amendment was treated as a change in the entry, not proof of prior coverage under sub-serial No. 3803. The review succeeded and the lower classification and drawback position were restored. en-us Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:01:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49139 The authority held that the Assistant Collector could revise an earlier drawback claim and recover drawback wrongly allowed under Rule 14 once the decision had been made and communicated, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. It further held that bright stainless steel bars fell within sub-serial No. 3606 because the phrase "all types" covered stainless steel, "steel" in the Schedule included stainless steel unless excluded, and the specific description of bright steel bars prevailed over the general residual entry for articles. The 1-6-1989 amendment was treated as a change in the entry, not proof of prior coverage under sub-serial No. 3803. The review succeeded and the lower classification and drawback position were restored. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49139