2019 (11) TMI 259 - AT - Customs

Amendment in shipping bill - rejection of request for 'No Objection Certificate' for claiming MEIS by amendment of reward option from 'No' to 'Yes' in shipping bills - CBIC Circular No.36/2010-Customs dated 23.9.2010 - HELD THAT - The Commissioner has failed to notice that the appellant has declared their intention to claim METS benefits in all the shipping bills which have been produced on record. The only lapse on the part of the appellant was that they have mentioned in the reward column as 'N' instead of 'Y', which is only a procedural defect. Further, it is found that otherwise the appellant is entitled to claim METS benefit as per the export policy. Failure to mention 'Y' in the reward column of the shipping bill for availing the benefit under METS scheme can be corrected by amending the shipping bill as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. PASHA INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 2019 (2) TMI 1187 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . The rejection of request for amendment of shipping bill by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of request for 'No Objection Certificate' for claiming MEIS by amending reward option in shipping bills.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner's order rejecting the request for amending the shipping bills to correct an inadvertent error in declaring the intention to claim METS benefit. The appellant had declared their intention to claim the benefit, but mistakenly marked 'N' instead of 'Y' in the column regarding transmission to DGFT. The Commissioner rejected the request, citing non-compliance with procedures and CBIC Circular No.36/2010-Customs. The appellant argued that the error was procedural and substantial compliance was evident. They relied on judicial precedents where similar amendments were allowed. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had indeed declared their intention to claim METS benefits and that the error was procedural. Referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts of Madras and Delhi, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment should be allowed. The Tribunal found the rejection by the Commissioner unsustainable in law and directed the Customs Authorities to permit the amendment in the shipping bill upon submission of a certified copy of the order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant's declaration of intent to claim METS benefits was clear, and the error in the shipping bills was procedural. Relying on judicial precedents and noting similar amendments allowed at other ports, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the Customs Authorities to permit the necessary amendment.