2020 (2) TMI 61 - AT - Customs

Amendment in shipping bill - rejection of request of the appellant for No Objection Certificate for claiming MEIS benefits 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, I find 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. The rejection of request for amendment of shipping bills by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Request for "No Objection Certificate" for amending reward option in Shipping Bills for claiming MEIS benefits.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Commissioner's rejection of the request for amending the reward column in Shipping Bills from "No" to "Yes" for claiming MEIS benefits. The appellant's CHA inadvertently missed changing the entry, leading to the rejection of the request. The Commissioner emphasized the importance of declaring intention for Customs examination norms and cited CBIC Circular No. 36/2010, stating that amending the Shipping Bills would allow cargo to escape examination, contrary to regulations.

The appellant argued that the rejection lacked legal sustainability as they had declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits on the Shipping Bills, except for a procedural error in one column. They highlighted their consistent MEIS benefit claims without misdeclaration. They cited the Madras High Court's decision allowing correction under Section 149 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal's previous ruling, and the Delhi High Court's judgment directing amendment despite no declaration. The appellant provided examples of other ports permitting similar amendments and referenced relevant case laws to support their position.

The AR defended the impugned order, but upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits in most cases. The failure to mark "Y" instead of "N" in the reward column was deemed a procedural defect, with the appellant otherwise meeting MEIS benefit entitlement criteria. The Tribunal referenced the Madras High Court and Delhi High Court decisions, along with previous Tribunal rulings and a Kerala High Court judgment, to support the allowance of amendments in similar situations. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's rejection lacked legal merit, set aside the orders, and directed Customs Authorities to permit the amendment in the Shipping Bills upon presentation of a certified copy of the Tribunal's order. The appeal was allowed.