2017 (1) TMI 203 - HC - Customs

Benefit of export incentive - shipping bills did not contain declaration which was required by virtue of a N/N. dated 1.4.2008, which mandated such condition, for claiming export incentive - Did the CESTAT fall into error in upholding the denial of the petitioner s claim for amendment of its shipping document under Section 149 of the Customs Act? - Held that - The exporter/appellant s fault here is that it did not file the requisite declaration. In all other respects, i.e., as to whether they conform to the description in the shipping documents and the value etc continues to be ascertainable because the concerned bills, invoices and other shipping documents are available with the customs authorities. The omission to file the declaration of the kind we are concerned with, when all other relative materials are present was not vital to the appellant s case. The material which did and does exist is substantial; the appellant should, therefore, be permitted to amend its shipping bill - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of claim for amendment of shipping document under Section 149 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant exporting consignments without a required declaration, leading to a denial of duty credit entitlement under a relevant scheme. The Commissioner of Appeals set aside the denial, but the revenue appealed.
2. The CESTAT overturned the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that amendments to shipping documents under Section 149 must be based on evidence available at the time of export. However, the CESTAT also acknowledged that the benefit of the scheme was available to the appellant.
3. A difference of opinion arose among CESTAT members regarding the permissibility of amending shipping bills post-export. The third member agreed with the technical member that post-export amendments were not entertainable under Section 149.
4. The appellant argued that the omission to file the declaration was a curable defect due to consistent past exports without such a requirement. The revenue cited a Division Bench ruling to support the Customs authorities' stance on amendments post-export.

5. The Court differentiated the present case from the cited ruling, noting the appellant's consistent export history and the introduction of the declaration requirement after their exports. The Court emphasized that the Handbook of Procedure conditions are not laws but must be fulfilled. The Court found the omission to file the declaration non-fatal given the availability of other supporting documents.
6. Considering the circumstances, the Court held that the appellant should be allowed to amend the shipping bill within two months, as the existing evidence was substantial. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.