2017 (4) TMI 1397 - HC - Customs

Amendment of Shipping Bill - Relevant date - Whether the date of shipment is relevant date for the purpose of amendment of shipping bill as stipulated under Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962? - Held that - The Tribunal finds, as a fact, that the quantities mentioned in the ARE-1 forms as well as exported are one and the same. The efficacy of the let export order in a case such as the present has its limitations as there can, in fact, be no physical examination of the molasses remaining in the storage tank on the date of the let order . All relevant documents including the shipping bills, ullage reports and let export orders confirm the quantity exported to be one and the same. The conclusion of the Department to the effect that there has been an incorrect representation of the quantity of exports thus appears to have been based wholly on surmises and nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the same. The conclusion of the Tribunal is thus well founded and the departmental appeal liable to be dismissed. The amendment of a shipping bill is a matter of exercise of discretion by the proper officer who has to taken into account the necessary circumstances arising out of a transaction. In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs has omitted to notice the peculiar nature of his goods exported and the aspects of storage and transfer which necessarily should have been taken into account by him in deciding whether the amendment is to be effected or not. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the relevance of the "date of shipment" for amending a shipping bill.
2. Discrepancy in the declaration of actual quantity of export in a shipping bill for Indian cane molasses.
3. Determination of actual quantity of molasses shipped and the validity of the "let export" order date.
4. Evaluation of evidence and documents to establish the quantity of exports.
5. Exercise of discretion by the proper officer in amending a shipping bill considering the nature of goods exported.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to the interpretation of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, focusing on whether the "date of shipment" is crucial for amending a shipping bill. The case involved an exporter of agricultural products who filed a shipping bill omitting crucial details, seeking to amend it post-export. The Commissioner of Customs initially rejected the request citing lack of evidence regarding the actual quantity at the time of export.

2. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, directing a detailed verification to ascertain the actual quantity of molasses shipped. The significance of a specific date was highlighted, indicating potential inflation in export quantities post that date. The judgment emphasized the importance of verifying the actual quantity exported before allowing any amendments to the shipping bill.

3. The CESTAT, in the subsequent appeal, considered the nature of the cargo, cane molasses, and the challenges in physically verifying the quantity at the time of the "let export" order. The Tribunal found consistency between the quantities declared in the ARE-1 forms and the actual exports. It noted the limitations in physically examining the remaining molasses in the storage tank post-export.

4. The Tribunal criticized the Department's conclusion of incorrect representation of export quantities as based on surmises without substantial evidence. It highlighted the importance of considering the peculiar nature of goods exported and storage aspects while deciding on amendments to shipping bills. The judgment emphasized the discretion of the proper officer in such matters and dismissed the departmental appeal.

5. Ultimately, the judgment underscored the discretionary nature of amending shipping bills, urging officers to consider all relevant circumstances. It concluded that the decision to amend should account for the unique characteristics of the goods exported and the storage and transfer processes involved. The judgment answered the substantial question raised and dismissed the appeal without costs.