2015 (1) TMI 206 - AT - Customs

Concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. - debit of the duty against an SFIS scrip - payment of interest in cash - Held that - It can be seen from the above that there is no express prohibition under Section 149 for amendment of Bill of Entry after the goods have been cleared. What the section provides is that if such an amendment is to be carried out, it has to be based on documentary evidence which was an existence at the time the goods were cleared. It is nobody s case in the present matter that SFIS was not in existence or the description of the goods and the tariff heading and their eligibility for exemption was not in existence at the time of clearance. The Commissioner (Appeals) observation does not contain which element was not in existence at the time of request for amendment. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the impugned order. Moreover, I also find that in respect of the same importer, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order No. 46/2012, dated 15-3-2012 had allowed such amendment under similar circumstances. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the authorities are directed to allow debit of SFIS scrip for the demand and accept the interest that may be payable by the importer. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant can debit the duty against an SFIS scrip and pay interest in cash after a demand notice was issued.
2. Whether the Bill of Entry can be amended after the goods have been cleared.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported goods under a Bill of Entry and later discovered a short levy of duty. The original adjudicating authority rejected the request to debit the SFIS scrip and pay interest in cash. An appeal against this rejection was also dismissed. The Commissioner (Appeals) cited Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, stating that amending a Bill of Entry after the goods have been cleared is prohibited. However, the Tribunal noted that there is no explicit prohibition for such amendments post-clearance under Section 149. The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment must be supported by documentary evidence existing at the time of clearance. As the SFIS and goods' details were available during clearance, the rejection was deemed unjustified. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted a previous order where similar amendments were allowed for the same importer, further supporting the appellant's case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, directing authorities to permit the SFIS scrip debit and accept any payable interest.

2. The Tribunal analyzed the Commissioner (Appeals) rejection of the appellant's request to amend the Bill of Entry post-clearance. Section 149 of the Customs Act was invoked by the Commissioner (Appeals) to justify the rejection. However, the Tribunal pointed out that Section 149 does not explicitly prohibit post-clearance amendments but requires supporting documentary evidence from the time of clearance. As the necessary documentation existed during clearance, the Tribunal found no merit in the rejection. Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted a prior order where similar amendments were allowed for the same importer, indicating inconsistency in decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal overturned the impugned order and directed authorities to permit the SFIS scrip debit and accept any payable interest, emphasizing the availability of necessary documentation during clearance as the basis for the decision.