2017 (3) TMI 442 - AT - Customs

Validity of permission granted to amend import general manifest - Held that - That there was a bill of lading is not in doubt and that the manifest did reflect the bill of lading is also not in doubt. That it was intended for Mumbai and was sought to be cleared in Mumbai is not in doubt. That such manifested cargo should become unmanifested is a transformation that is not comprehensible - That such a manifest is sought to be amended is not surprising. It is a fundamental procedure in customs clearance for bill of entry to be filed only by the person named in the manifest and, if upon arrival, the ownership is found to have changed, that contract of sale is consummated only by enabling the buyer to clear the cargo; that requires amendment. There is no evidence to show that manifest did not reflect the documents of title or that the amendment that was sought did not have the support of documents of title. Accordingly, confiscation has been ordered without the authority of law. Imposition of penalty is also without authority of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to permission granted to amend import general manifest subject to redemption of goods confiscated under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order granting permission to amend an import general manifest by M/s Mitusutor Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd. The amendment was sought due to an alleged error in filing the name of the consignee in the manifest. The goods were confiscated under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, with a condition to pay a fine and penalty for redemption. The main issue was the confiscation of goods based on the alleged erroneous filing of the consignee's name and the subsequent amendment sought by the appellant.

The impugned confiscation was a result of the alleged error in the filing of the consignee's name in the manifest. The appellant sought to amend the consignee's name based on an endorsement on the bill of lading. The Commissioner confiscated the goods, deeming them unmanifested, and imposed a redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal analyzed the commercial transaction chain and the obligations of the carrier in ensuring safe delivery to the consignee. It emphasized the significance of bills of lading as documents of receipt and safe delivery. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of manifest in controlling cargo and facilitating customs clearance.

The Tribunal noted that amendments to manifests may be necessary due to errors or changes in ownership during commercial transactions. It criticized the Commissioner for not considering the motive behind the amendment and imposing confiscation and penalties without evidence of mala fides. The Tribunal highlighted the statutory provisions allowing for manifest amendments and criticized the imposition of penalties without legal authority. It emphasized that the commercial transaction and subsequent manifest amendment should not be misconstrued as smuggling without evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, as the carrier, had to comply with the cargo owner's instructions for delivery to the buyer. It emphasized the necessity of amending the manifest to reflect ownership changes for customs clearance. The Tribunal found no evidence of mala fide intent in the manifest amendment and criticized the confiscation and penalty imposition without legal basis. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the confiscation and penalties.