2015 (2) TMI 1107 - HC - Customs

Claim of Refund - reassessment of Bill of Entry - import of Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate Co-Polymers and payment of customs duty @ 7.5% - claim of benefit of Notification No.152 of 2009-Cus/dated 31.12.2009, - Held that - the petitioner is seeking is an amendment of the Bill of Entry which is permissible under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 even after the goods have been cleared for home consumption provided the said amendment is based on documentary evidence which was in existence at the time when the goods were cleared. - the said notification was in existence at that point of time - this is a clear case where the petitioner could avail of the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and we, therefore, direct him to move an application before the proper officer seeking amendment of the Bill of Entry in terms of Section 149. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Re-assessment of Bill of Entry and refund of excess duty paid due to a mistake in claiming an exemption under a notification.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application seeking re-assessment of a Bill of Entry to refund the excess duty paid by the petitioner due to a mistake in claiming an exemption under a notification. The petitioner had imported Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate Co-Polymers and paid customs duty at 7.5% instead of the lower rate of 1% available under Notification No.152 of 2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009. The petitioner sought to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the notification was in existence at the time of clearance. The court acknowledged the petitioner's mistake and directed them to move an application before the proper officer for amending the Bill of Entry in line with Section 149.

The court emphasized that under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, amendments to the Bill of Entry are permissible even after goods have been cleared for home consumption, provided the amendment is supported by documentary evidence existing at the time of clearance. In this case, as the notification offering a lower duty rate was in place during clearance, the petitioner was eligible to avail of the provisions of Section 149. The court instructed the petitioner to submit the application for amendment to the proper officer within a week, who was directed to review and decide on the application within four weeks from its submission. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, granting relief to the petitioner for re-assessment and refund of the excess duty paid due to the error in claiming the duty exemption under the notification.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of adhering to notification provisions while clearing goods to avoid overpayment of duties. It underscores the significance of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, in allowing amendments to the Bill of Entry based on documentary evidence available at the time of clearance. The court's decision to grant relief to the petitioner by directing the amendment of the Bill of Entry showcases the application of legal provisions to rectify inadvertent errors in customs duty payments, ensuring fair treatment and compliance with statutory requirements in import transactions.