2013 (11) TMI 1351 - AT - Customs

Duty demand - Importer neither paid the duty assessed under the respective Bills of Entry nor cleared the cargo from the Customs area - Importer contends that due to some logistic problem in transferring the imported cargo, the same could not be moved from the port area - Further, they have stated that neither customs duty was paid nor any amount was remitted to the foreign supplier, hence, the respective Bills of Entry be treated as withdrawn - Assessee approached Commissioner of Customs(Import), Bhubaneswar requesting for cancellation of the Bills of Entry and also amendment to the respective IGM filed by the importer M/s. MMTC and M/s. STC, on the ground that they have entered into agreement with the overseas seller/supplier and purchased the said consignments, which were not cleared by the previous importers - Commssioner rejected requests for amendment to the IGM, cancellation of the earlier Bills of Entry and for filing fresh Bills of Entry. Held that - Importers, M/s.MMTC and M/s.STC, both Public Sector Undertakings, have imported Indonesian Steaming (Non-Cooking) Coal in the month of the Dec. 2011 & Feb. 2012, from the same overseas seller/supplier. At the time of importation of the said goods, the importers had complied with all the necessary formalities, like submission of IGM, Bills of Entry etc. along with other relevant documents necessary for clearance of the Cargo for home consumption from the Customs area. It is also not in dispute that the Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012, respectively, were finally assessed by the Customs authorities and handed over to the importers M/s.MMTC and M/s. STC for payment of duty; but both the importers have failed to discharge the duty and clear the goods. In the meantime, the authorities have initiated action under Section 48 of the Customs Act. Thereafter, the importers M/s MMTC & M/s STC had filed representations with the Customs authorities informing that they could not clear the goods because of logistic problem and requested for cancellation of the respective Bills of Entry and also expressed of having no objection for amending the IGMs in favour of the new consignee to whom the goods would be sold by the overseas supplier. If the Appellants are ready to discharge the duty assessed by the Department relating Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012, respectively, and other liabilities as on the date of clearance of goods, we do not see any reason as to why the amendment to the IGMs requested by them, only to the extent of change of the names of the importers, be not allowed, as the principal ground for rejection of such request, is no more relevant - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Amendment to Import General Manifest (IGM).
2. Cancellation of earlier Bills of Entry.
3. Filing fresh Bills of Entry.
4. Discharge of duty, interest, and other liabilities.
5. Impact on revenue due to reassessment.

Detailed Analysis:

Amendment to Import General Manifest (IGM):

The appellants, after purchasing the imported goods from the overseas seller, requested the customs authorities to amend the respective IGMs to incorporate their name as the importer instead of the original importers (M/s MMTC and M/s STC). The authorities initially rejected this request, fearing substantial loss of revenue. However, the Tribunal found that since the appellants were willing to discharge all liabilities as per the assessed Bills of Entry, the amendment should be allowed to facilitate the clearance of goods. The Tribunal directed the customs authorities to allow the amendment to the IGMs to replace the names of the original importers with that of the appellants.

Cancellation of Earlier Bills of Entry:

The appellants also sought the cancellation of the earlier Bills of Entry filed by M/s MMTC and M/s STC, citing that the goods were not cleared due to logistical issues and no payment was made to the overseas supplier. The Tribunal noted that the earlier Bills of Entry were finally assessed and the importers did not appeal against the assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to cancel the Bills of Entry but allowed the appellants to seek amendments to replace the names of the original importers with their own.

Filing Fresh Bills of Entry:

The appellants requested permission to file fresh Bills of Entry to clear the goods for home consumption based on the transaction value and the rate of duty prevailing on the date of filing the fresh Bills of Entry. The customs authorities rejected this request, fearing a substantial loss of revenue due to potential reassessment. The Tribunal, however, found that since the appellants were willing to discharge all liabilities as per the assessed Bills of Entry, there was no reason to deny the amendment to the existing Bills of Entry instead of filing fresh ones.

Discharge of Duty, Interest, and Other Liabilities:

The appellants expressed their willingness to discharge all duties, interest, and other liabilities as per the assessed Bills of Entry. The Tribunal acknowledged this commitment and directed the customs authorities to facilitate the amendment of the Bills of Entry to replace the names of the original importers with that of the appellants. This would enable the appellants to clear the goods for home consumption after discharging all liabilities.

Impact on Revenue Due to Reassessment:

The customs authorities' primary concern was the potential loss of revenue due to reassessment if fresh Bills of Entry were filed. The Tribunal addressed this concern by noting that the appellants' commitment to discharge all liabilities as per the assessed Bills of Entry mitigated the risk of revenue loss. The Tribunal found that the amendment to the IGMs and Bills of Entry, as requested by the appellants, would not result in any loss of revenue and was a pragmatic solution to resolve the dispute.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority with directions to:
1. Allow the amendment to the IGMs to replace the names of the original importers with that of the appellants.
2. Consider the application for amendment to the Bills of Entry to the extent of substituting the names of the original importers with that of the appellants.

The Tribunal also directed the customs authorities to dispose of the application within one month from the date of receipt of relevant documents from the appellants. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.