Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 16 - CESTAT MUMBAISeeking amendment in the shipping bill - In the Shipping Bill, the appellant had initially mentioned the code ‘9801’, instead of the applicable code for Brand rate fixation as ‘980788411B’ - amendment was sought on the ground that the appellant was intending to claim brand rate of drawback in terms of Circular No. 29/2015-Customs dated 16.11.2015 - Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. HELD THAT:- The appellants wanted to impress upon the fact that the Brand Rate Fixation claim was existed at the time of export and thus, the application was appropriately made for amendment of the Shipping Bill in terms of Section 149 and Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, on examination of the orders passed by the lower authorities, it is found that the reference of documents relied upon by the appellants in this appeal were not at all considered by them and the claim of the appellants for amendment of the shipping bill was denied solely on the ground that the appellants did not submit any documentary evidence available at the time of export to substantiate their claim for amendment of the shipping bill. The provisions for amendment of documents are contained in Section 149 ibid. It has been mandated that the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorize any document, after it has been presented in the Customs House to be amended. The proviso clause appended to Section 149 ibid provides that no amendment of a shipping bill shall be authorized to be amended after the goods have been exported, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared - In the present case, though the appellants have claimed that the provisions of Section 149 ibid have been duly complied by them, but the request letter for amendment of the shipping bill was turned down by the authorities on the ground that no documents were submitted to demonstrate that such amendment merits consideration in respect of the exports already made. Thus, under such circumstances, the lower authority should properly examine the documentary evidence submitted by the appellants for proper appreciation of the fact regarding amendment of the shipping bill. Further, Section 154 ibid provides for the mechanism of correction of clerical errors, etc. in any decision or order passed by the officer of customs. In the case in hand, though the appellants had claimed that due to typographical error, the shipping bill has wrongly claimed the duty Drawback under Sr. No. 98.01, but the available documents, including the email correspondences proved the fact that the correct classification reference should be under Entry 84.11.82.20. However, with regard to the prayer made for correction of such error or mistake had not been addressed by the authorities below. The matter should go back to the original authority to properly examine the issue, whether the documents based on which the amendment is sought for by the appellants were present at the time of exportation of the subject goods or arranged subsequently by them for obtaining the benefit of Drawback - the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority for de novo adjudication of the matter. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|