TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 opportuni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Writ Petition (L) No. 249 of 2020 [Dimension Data India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Anr.] wherein, upon consideration of section 149 of the Act, it was ruled as follows: 18. From a careful analysis of section 149, we find that under the said provision a discretion is vested on the proper officer to authorise amendment of any document after being presented in the customs house. However, as per the proviso, no such amendment shall be authorised after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or warehoused, etc. except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, etc. Thus, amendment of the Bill of Entry is clearly permissible even in a situation where the goods are cleared for home consumption. The only condition is that in such a case, the amendment shall be allowed only on the basis of the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time of clearance of the goods. 5. Ms. Rathi has also relied on the judgment and order dated March 5, 2021 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 34627 and 34629 of 2019 [Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Union of India Ors.], w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after it is presented in the Custom House to be amended. Proviso to Section 149 clearly lays down that no amendment of bill of entry shall be authorized to be amended after imported goods have been cleared for home consumption. Thus, the opportunity to have the bill of entry amended in terms of Section 149 of the Act, was simply not available to the Petitioner. 9. Mr. Jetly has also drawn our attention to the reply-affidavit of the respondents to Writ Petition (L) No. 13894 of 2021 and submitted that under the Indian Customs EDI System, no amendments in GSTN ID can be made. Since paragraph 4 of the reply-affidavit has been brought to our notice, we quote the same hereunder: 4. I say that the Petitioners filed Bill of Entry No.8405273 dated 07.08.2020 for import of Butachlor Tech 95% w/w . In the Bill of Entry, the Petitioners had given their Delhi Unit address mentioned as `Sinochem India Company India Pvt. Ltd., Bearing No.4H 4J, 4th Floor, M-6, Plaza Jasola District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi with GSTIN [Goods and Service Tax Identification Number] 07AALCS6343N9ZI registered in Delhi. A copy of Bill of Entry No.8405273 dated 07.08.2020, is annexed hereto and marked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, as may be specified by the Board, may be done by the importer or exporter on the common portal. 13. The second and third provisos have been incorporated in section 149 by way of amendment; however, such amendments do not have the effect of stultifying the prayers made by the respective petitioners. The decision in Micromax Informatics Ltd. (supra), 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. 14. In our considered opinion, the decision in Dimension Data India Private Ltd. (supra) correctly interpre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 18. The grounds for not allowing amendments are clearly untenable and hence, judicial interdiction for securing justice in the present cases is considered necessary. 19. We grant an order in terms of prayer (a) in Writ Petition (L) No. 8163 of 2021. We also partially allow Writ Petition (L) No. 13894 of 2021. Writ Petition (L) No. 8163 of 2021 as well as Writ Petition (L) No. 13894 of 2021 are disposed of by directing the concerned respondent to consider the applications for amendment of the documents of the respective petitioners in the light of the observations made hereinabove as well as 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. Should the concerned respondent refuse to grant the prayer for amendment, it is needless to observe that a reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners. On the contrary, if the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
