Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 869 - HC - CustomsAmendment of Bill of Entry - seeking amendment in GSTIN and the address in the BOE dated August 07, 2020 - section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The decision in MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2018 (12) TMI 802 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], with due respect, proceeds to read the only proviso to section 149 (as it then stood) in a constricted manner as if the words “except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be” are not there in such proviso. However, it could be so that the interpretation placed by the Court on the first proviso is correct for the purpose of determination of the issue arising for decision therein, i.e., rejection of the petitioner’s refund claims for the period between July 2014 and June 2015. We, therefore, hold that such interpretation of section 149 as made by the coordinate Bench turns on the facts and circumstances of the case before it. The decision in DIMENSION DATA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND ANR. [2021 (1) TMI 1042 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] correctly interprets section 149 and we share the view expressed therein that amendment to the Bill of Entry is clearly permissible even in a situation where the goods are cleared. The petitioners had prayed for amendment of documents only, which is squarely covered under section 149 of the Act, any deficiency in the system cannot be used by the respondents as a shield so as to deny relief to a party; if indeed the system does not permit, the deficiency has to be covered up manually until improvements are effected in the system for such amendment. We also record not having been shown from the reply-affidavit that even a manual amendment is not possible - the grounds for not allowing amendments are clearly untenable and hence, judicial interdiction for securing justice in the present cases is considered necessary. Petition disposed of by directing the concerned respondent to consider the applications for amendment of the documents of the respective petitioners in accordance with law, upon granting the authorized representative of the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, as early as possible but not later than four weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.
|