2016 (12) TMI 1312 - HC - Customs

Seeking of permission to make amendment in IGM - Held that - it is entirely for the authorities to act in terms of the powers conferred by the Act of 1962. The authorities cannot refuse to act merely because there is an allegation of a wrongful act or there is a protest raised. There is nothing in the Act of 1962 which would enable the authorities to adjudicate any civil dispute and as if it is a Court of law - the concerned authority directed to consider the application for amendment or substitution to the Import General Manifest, provided, the petitioner executes an indemnity bond in favour of the authorities indemnifying them of the claims and protests raised by the private parties regarding the goods in question - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking writ of mandamus for amendment in Import General Manifest.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the authorities to allow an amendment in the Import General Manifest (IGM) to enable a different entity, respondent no.5, to take possession of the cargo consigned to the 4th respondent. The petitioner had originally consigned 2,000 MT of Canadian Whole Yellow Peas to the 4th respondent as per a Sales Contract with another entity called "Sakuma." However, due to non-payment by Sakuma, the petitioner sought to amend the IGM to allow respondent no.5 to take possession of the goods. The petitioner relied on Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for amendments to the IGM if the proper officer is satisfied that the manifest is incorrect or incomplete without fraudulent intent. The contesting respondent no.4 opposed the amendment, claiming that the facts presented were inaccurate and that their rights were at stake. The court noted that the Customs officers should not adjudicate civil disputes and directed the concerned authority to consider the amendment application upon the petitioner executing an indemnity bond to indemnify against any claims or protests regarding the goods. The court clarified that its order did not preclude respondent no.4 from seeking legal remedies.

In conclusion, the High Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's application for amendment to the IGM upon the execution of an indemnity bond by the petitioner. The court emphasized that Customs officers should not adjudicate civil disputes and that the petitioner's indemnification would protect against any claims regarding the goods. The court disposed of the Writ Petition while clarifying that respondent no.4 could still pursue legal remedies available to them.