2023 (7) TMI 71 - AT - Customs

Amendment in the shipping bill - failure to make a true and correct declaration while filing the shipping bill - actual exporter - Section 149 of Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - A perusal of Section 149 of CA 1962 would make it clear that if the request of amendment is on the basis of the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were exported then the amendment can be allowed by the proper officer. So the discretion has been left with the proper officer but the precondition is that it should be on the basis of documentary evidence existing at the time when the goods were exported. In the instant case although the export has been made by the appellant but inadvertently the name of M/s. Dinal Diamonds was mentioned and when the mistake has been realized the exporter/CHA immediately took step and filed the amendment application alongwith the supporting documentary evidence existing at the of export viz. Export Invoice No. 43/2018-19 dated 24.8.2018 and the Airway Bill dated 24.8.2018 and all these documents contain the name of the appellant only and there is no mention of M/s. Dinal Diamond in those documents. The observation of the learned Commissioner that the appellants are not the actual exporter and hence section 149 ibid has no application is without any basis - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are the application of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the amendment of documents in the context of an export shipping bill where the name of the exporter was incorrectly mentioned, leading to a penalty imposition and subsequent appeal by the Revenue.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Application of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962

The appellant had filed a shipping bill for export of diamonds, but the name of the exporter was mistakenly mentioned as 'Dinal Diamonds' instead of the correct name. The appellant requested an amendment to rectify this error, supported by relevant documents such as the original export invoice and airway bill. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, with a penalty imposed on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal, contending that since the appellant was not the actual exporter, Section 149 did not apply. However, the Tribunal held that Section 149 permits amendments based on existing documentary evidence at the time of export. In this case, the documents clearly indicated the appellant as the actual exporter, contradicting the Commissioner's conclusion. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appellant's appeal.

Key Points:
- The discretion of the proper officer under Section 149 for document amendments.
- Requirement of documentary evidence existing at the time of export.
- Contradiction in the Commissioner's conclusion regarding the actual exporter.
- Correct application of Section 149 in allowing the amendment based on supporting documents.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering the provisions of Section 149 and the documentary evidence presented, concluded that the appellant was the actual exporter, justifying the amendment to rectify the shipping bill error. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was allowed.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key legal aspects and the Tribunal's decision on the application of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the context of the shipping bill amendment.