2022 (10) TMI 815 - AT - Customs

Seeking amendment and consequent re-assessment of Bill of Entry - clearance of imported goods viz. LDPE Innoplus LD 2420 - country of origin - benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 dtd. 01.06.2011 - HELD THAT - It can be seen that as far as Section 149 is concerned amendment is to be allowed on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time when the goods were cleared deposited or exported. The only restriction is Sections 30 and 41 of Customs Act 1962 which relates to export and import manifest which are not allowed to be amended of when there is a fraudulent intention. In the case of amended document under Section 149 the amendment has to be allowed when a request is based on documentary evidence which was in existence at the time of clearance of the goods - In the case on hand from the material on records it is seen that apparently there was an error on the part of the CHA who inadvertently mentioned Notification No. 12/2012- Customs and accordingly discharged 7.5% customs duty. whereas the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 was available to the Appellant. Section 154 and 149 of the Customs Act 1962 postulates the intention of the legislature and any correction could be made. An importer has a right to make amendments in the Bills of Entry covering imported goods assessed and cleared for home consumption or deposit in a warehouse if he satisfies the condition prescribed in the said Section that such amendments are sought on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods had been cleared/deposited. In the instant case amendments to the Bills of Entry sought to be made are not on the strength of any new document. This right of the importer is not removed or whittled down by the judgments in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC which is relied upon by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order is not sustainable in law and is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant with the direction to the assessing officers / original authority that the request of the appellant for reassessment be considered for amendment of Bill of Entry and appropriate order be passed in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-323-14-15
- Benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 denied
- Interpretation of provisions of Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Application of Section 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Amendment and re-assessment of Bill of Entry requested
- Judicial precedents relied upon
- Finding of impugned order challenged
- Consideration of documentary evidence for amendment
- Correction of clerical errors under Section 154
- Importer's right to seek amendments in Bills of Entry
- Sustainability of impugned order

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad was lodged against Order-in-Appeal No. AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-323-14-15, where the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Original Authority regarding the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011. The Appellant sought an amendment to the Bill of Entry for imported goods, claiming the benefit of a lower customs duty rate under the said notification, which was available at the time of filing. The Appellant argued that the country of origin and HSN details were already declared, justifying the amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Appellant contended that the Ld. Commissioner erred in his findings, especially regarding the interpretation of Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellant emphasized the need for re-assessment under Section 154 due to clerical errors made by the Customs Broker. The Appellate Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and examined the relevant provisions of Section 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence for amendments and correction of clerical errors.

Referring to various judicial precedents, including Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Symrise Pvt. Ltd. and others, the Appellant highlighted the right of the importer to seek amendments in Bills of Entry based on existing documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the importer's right under Section 149 should not be restricted, especially when seeking corrections due to inadvertent errors or omissions. The Tribunal also cited the decision in Hero Cycles v. Union of India, emphasizing the duty of authorities to assess goods in accordance with the law, ensuring that duty is not demanded if not payable.

Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the Appellant. The Tribunal directed the assessing officers to reconsider the request for reassessment, amend the Bill of Entry, and pass an appropriate order following due process and giving the Appellant an opportunity to be heard. The decision was pronounced on 18th October 2022, emphasizing the importance of upholding legal principles and providing relief to the Appellant through a remand to the original authority for further proceedings.