Per P. Karthikeyan : These are appeals filed by M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., Chennai and M/s. Shree Ambika Sugars Ltd., Chennai, against a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy dated 26.06.06. The appellants had imported raw sugar for conversion into white sugar under the DEEC Scheme. Imports were made by the appellants under three consignments each in the year 2004 through the port of Tuticorin. The appellants approached DGFT for extension of time to fulfill export obligation. DGFT asked the appellants to pay 2% of the duty saved towards fee for extension of time. Thereupon the appellants approached the Commissioner (Customs), Tuticorin, for amendment of the Bills of Entry revising the Additional duty of Customs (CVD) applicable from 16% ad valorem to Rs. 71/- per quintal by re-classifying the imported goods under CETH No. 1701.39 for assessment of CVD in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Vide his letter dated 15.02.06, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, informed the appellants that the amendment sought could not be allowed as the same would lead to re-assessment and re-quantification of the duty forgone. The impugned order is passed in appeals filed by the parties against this communication of the Assistant Commissioner addressed to the appellants. In adjudicating the appeals, the Commissioner (A) found that the amendment sought involved revision of classification and assessment. The classification sought had not been declared at the time of filing the Bills of Entry for examination of the goods before they were cleared. There was no record of the importer filing any protest before the proper officer before payment of duty. He observed that in the case of M/s. Prem Nath Diesels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta - 1997 (19) RLT 241 (CEGAT-SB)=1997 (91) ELT 130 (Tri.), the Tribunal had held that the description in the Bill of Entry could not be amended after the goods were cleared as the description could not be verified. The assessment of the Bills of Entry made by the proper officer had not been challenged. Therefore, the original assessment of the Bills of Entry had become final. In the case of M/s. J.M. Industries Vs. Commissioner - 2003 (58) RLT 861 (CESTAT-Del.)=2003 (156) ELT 977 (Tri.), it was held that assessment of Bills of Entry was an appealable order and appeal could be filed against assessment of Bills of Entry. In CC Vs. M/s. Arvind Export - 2001 (44) RLT 32 (CEGAT-LB)=2001 (130) ELT 54 (Tri.-LB), it was held that an order under Section 47 of the Customs Act allowing clearance on Bill of Entry submitted by the importer was an adjudication order. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeals filed by the importer and refused to interfere with the communication dated 15.02.06 of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. In the appeal before the Tribunal, one of the grounds taken is that the communication of the Assistant Commissioner Customs deciding their representation for amending the Bills of Entry was issued without giving them an opportunity for presenting their case. The relevant Bills of Entry had shown the applicable CVD as 16% ad valorem instead of the correct Rs. 71/- per quintal. This error could be rectified by amending the relevant Bills of Entry in terms of Section 149 of the Act. The lower authorities had denied permission to amend the Bills of Entry as authorized under the Section 149 of the Act. It was submitted that the amendment was required in the wake of the DGFT requiring them to pay 2% of the duty saved for extending the time limit to complete the export obligation. They relied on a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2005 (67) RLT 82 (CESTAT-Che.)=2004 (173) ELT 518 (Tri.-Chen.), wherein it was held that amending of Bills of Entry meant alteration, addition and deletion of particulars allowed at the discretion of the proper officer and it would not mean reassessment of Bill of Entry.

2. At the time of heari