2017 (12) TMI 782 - AT - Customs

Amendment of bill of entry - Time limitation - refund of excess duty paid by mistake - Held that - I have perused the invoice which is on record as well as the previous Bill of Entry wherein the identical product was cleared under actual price whereas in the present case, the price was wrongly quoted, as a result of which excess duty was paid - the Revenue has wrongly rejected the application on the ground of delay whereas the delay has been properly explained and moreover no time limit is prescribed under Section 149 For seeking amendment in the Bill of Entry - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Excess duty payment due to clerical error in declaring MRP on imported goods.
2. Rejection of refund application by the Revenue on the grounds of delay in filing an amended application.
3. Applicability of Section 149 of the Customs Act for amending the Bill of Entry.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Excess duty payment due to clerical error
The appeal was against the impugned order rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of excess duty paid on imported Automotive Paint due to a clerical error in declaring the MRP on the invoice. The appellant imported "Numix Autobase 1 K" in retail packs of 3.6 Ltrs each, with the MRP per liter and per can mistakenly declared as ?5760. The error led to an excess duty payment of ?3,71,903. The appellant filed a refund application, which was initially returned as premature. Subsequently, the appellant sought an amendment to the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, which was rejected by the original authority. The First Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal, citing inadequate documentary evidence.

Issue 2: Rejection of refund application
The appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as the error in the declaration of MRP was a clerical mistake evident from the face of the invoice. The appellant provided documentary evidence, including the invoice and previous Bills of Entry for the same product cleared at the actual price, to support their claim. The Revenue rejected the refund application citing a 2-month delay in filing the amended application. However, the appellant contended that no time limit is prescribed under Section 149 for seeking an amendment in the Bill of Entry, supported by legal precedents.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 149 of the Customs Act
Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Judicial Member found that the error in declaring the MRP on the invoice was apparent. The Member noted that the previous Bill of Entry for the same product was cleared at the actual price, highlighting the clerical error in the present case. The rejection of the application on the grounds of delay was deemed improper, as Section 149 does not specify a time limit for seeking an amendment in the Bill of Entry. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant, acknowledging the clerical error in declaring the MRP on the invoice and ruling in their favor by allowing the appeal and providing relief from the excess duty payment.