2009 (6) TMI 835 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the application filed under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for amending shipping bills was rightly rejected by the lower authorities.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported raw materials under a Quantity Based Advance Licence and exported the final product under eight Shipping Bills. The issue arose when the DGFT objected to the discrepancy in the chemical name of the export goods mentioned in the shipping bills. The appellant sought to amend the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The original authority disallowed the amendment citing that the goods were already exported. The appellate authority upheld this decision, noting the difference in chemical names between the manufacturer's literature and the proposed amendment. The present appeal challenges the Appellate Commissioner's order.

3. Section 149 of the Customs Act allows for the amendment of documents under certain conditions. The proviso states that amendments to shipping bills after export are generally not allowed unless supported by documentary evidence existing at the time of export. The appellant claimed to have applied for amendment based on documents like ARE-ls, central excise invoices, export invoices, packing lists, and purchase orders. However, the chemical name in these documents did not match the proposed amendment.

4. The judge found no fault with the lower authorities' decisions based on the evidence presented. However, due to the absence of a limitation period under Section 149 and the absence of disputes regarding the export product's identity, the judge directed a remand to the original authority. The judge advised obtaining the opinion of the Director, Central Revenue Control Laboratory, to confirm the equivalence of the chemical names, potentially supporting the appellant's case under Section 149.

5. Consequently, the judge set aside the lower authorities' orders, allowing the appeal by remanding the case for a fresh decision after seeking the Director, CRCL's opinion and providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal provisions, arguments presented, and the judge's decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case.