9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1052 - AT - CustomsMEIS benefits - Amendment in shipping bills - rejection of request of the appellants for no objection certificate for claiming MEIS by amendment of reward option from No to Yes in shipping bills - HELD THAT - The Commissioner has failed to notice that the appellants have declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits in two cases out of three cases, 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 also found that otherwise the appellant is entitled to claim MEIS benefit as per the export policy. Failure to mention 'Y' in the reward column of the shipping bill for availing the benefit under MEIS scheme can be corrected by amending the shipping bill. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of KEDIA (AGENCIES) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2017 (1) TMI 203 - DELHI HIGH COURT has also allowed the amendment even in a situation where there was no declaration of intention whereas in the present case, the appellants have made the declaration on the front page of the shipping bills regarding their intention to claim the MEIS benefit except in the case of M/s. Kuruwa Enterprises. The rejection of request for amendment of shipping bills by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of request for no objection certificate for claiming MEIS by amending reward option in shipping bills. Analysis: The appellants filed three appeals against the Commissioner of Customs' order rejecting their request for amending the shipping bills to claim MEIS benefits. The issue in all three appeals was identical, leading to a common disposal. The appellants had mistakenly mentioned 'No' instead of 'Yes' in the MEIS benefit query in the shipping bills, causing non-transmission to the DGFT portal. The Commissioner rejected the amendment request citing the importance of declaring the intention for Customs examination norms and referencing a CBIC Circular. The appellants argued that the error was procedural and substantial compliance was evident on the face of the shipping bills. They relied on legal precedents, including a Madras High Court decision, to support their case. They also highlighted instances of similar amendments allowed at other ports. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and examined the records. It noted that the appellants had actually declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits in two out of three cases, with the error being a procedural defect of mentioning 'N' instead of 'Y'. The Tribunal found the appellants entitled to claim MEIS benefits as per export policy and cited the Madras High Court and Delhi High Court decisions supporting the correction of such errors through amendments. It also mentioned instances of similar amendments being allowed at other ports. Referring to its own previous decision and a Kerala High Court judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's rejection of the amendment request was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the Customs Authorities to allow the amendments in the shipping bills upon production of a certified copy of the order. The appeals were allowed, and the operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 19/11/2019.
|
