2013 (8) TMI 133 - AT - Customs

Amendment in the Bill of Entry - assessee imported the goods by mistake in the bill 6 items were mentioned instead of 5 - filed an application for amendment of Bill of entry in terms of provisions of Section 149 - application was rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellants had themselves made the declaration and the goods stand cleared as per the assessment done by the proper officer Held that - The appellant was entitled to make such amendment in the Bill of Entry - the declaration of proofing machine two times in the Bill of Entry is an obvious mistake committed by the CHA - It was only such type of mistake which are permitted to be amended in terms of section 149 of the Act - all the evidence relied upon by the importer are the documentary evidence which were available at the time of clearance of the goods evidence lead to only one inevitable conclusion that only 5 machines were imported by the appellant decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Amendment of Bill of Entry under Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 based on incorrect declaration by importer.

Analysis:
The appellant imported 5 machines but the Bill of Entry erroneously mentioned 6 items due to a mistake by the Customs House Agent (CHA). The appellant sought to correct this error by applying for an amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, which was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also denied the request, stating that since the goods were cleared based on the declaration, the amendment could not be allowed. The main contention was whether the appellant could rectify the incorrect declaration made in the Bill of Entry.

The Tribunal noted that Section 149 of the Customs Act permits amendments to the declaration in the Bill of Entry when there is a wrong declaration by the importer. The lower authorities' argument that the appellant made the declaration themselves and therefore could not amend it was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment provision is intended for situations where incorrect declarations are made by importers, as in this case where the mistake was made by the CHA, not the appellant.

Regarding the documentary evidence provided by the appellant, including the contract with the supplier, LC, invoices, packing list, and gate passes, all pointed to the importation of only 5 machines. The evidence clearly indicated that the mention of the proofing machine twice in the Bill of Entry was an obvious mistake by the CHA. Since the documentary evidence was available at the time of clearance and supported the importation of 5 machines, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 149. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant.