2018 (7) TMI 929 - HC - Customs

Amendment in IGM - In the IGM, the fourth respondent s name was mentioned as the importer in view of the fact that it was the notified party - The goods belonged to another party whose details are set out in paragraph 8 of the petition and at their request, the name of respondent No.4 was notified - Held that - Since there was no action taken but the petitioner was informed to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the fourth respondent, which in the circumstances aforestated, the petitioner says is untraceable, that this writ petition with the above prayer - All amendment applications ought to be disposed of expeditiously and without inconveniencing parties like the petitioner. More so, when they are ready and willing to indemnify the respondents against any claims being lodged or raised by the fourth respondent in this petition. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of Import General Manifest under the Customs Act, 1962 without NOC.
2. Interpretation of section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962 and related Circular for amendment requests.
3. Indemnification requirement for amendment applications involving third parties.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to amend the Import General Manifest (IGM) under the Customs Act, 1962, to substitute their name as the importer. The petitioner, engaged in agricultural commodity handling, faced a situation where the notified party refused to take delivery of the cargo, leading to the petitioner purchasing the goods. The petitioner approached the respondent for the amendment, but was asked to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the notified party, which was untraceable. This situation prompted the petitioner to file the writ petition seeking the amendment without the NOC.

2. The respondent relied on section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962, to justify the requirement of an NOC for amendments to the IGM. The court examined the relevant provisions of section 30, particularly sub-sections (2) and (3), along with a Circular issued in this regard. The Circular emphasized the need for strict compliance with the provisions of the Act for amendments involving fraudulent intentions or substantial revenue implications. However, for routine amendments like the petitioner's case, the Circular directed expeditious disposal without unnecessary delays or insistence on NOCs.

3. In light of the circumstances and the petitioner's willingness to indemnify the Customs against any claims from third parties, the court allowed the writ petition. The court directed the petitioner to provide the required indemnity, following which the IGM would be amended as requested. This decision aligned with previous judgments where similar situations were addressed, emphasizing the importance of timely and fair consideration of amendment applications to avoid inconveniencing parties like the petitioner. The court granted a ten-day extension for the petitioner to furnish the indemnity, concluding the judgment without imposing any costs.