2020 (11) TMI 197 - HC - Customs

Amendment of IGM - Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962 - petitioner contends that the insistence upon the 'no objection certificate' by the official respondents is not sustainable especially when respondent No.4 is not coming forth in any manner despite various efforts having been made - HELD THAT - The claim of the petitioners, as put forth by them, for amendment of the IGM, needs to be considered by the Competent Officer, who is respondent no.3 and a decision needs to be taken at an early date keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending since long and the petitioners are suffering on day to day basis. Direction is, therefore, issued to respondent No.3 to finalize the claim of the petitioners with regard to the amendment of IGM within a period of one week from today, keeping in view of the judgments, reference whereof has been made in the earlier part of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus for deleting Bill of Entry, Amendment to Import General Manifest (IGM) under Customs Act, 1962, Violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, Non-submission of 'no objection certificate' by original consignee, Interpretation of Circular dated 11.04.2017, Compliance with judgments of other High Courts.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to delete a Bill of Entry, claiming it to be illegal and violative of Customs Act, 1962 and Constitution of India. Petitioner, an exporter, faced issues with a consignment stuck at a port due to non-acceptance by the original consignee. Despite efforts for amendment in IGM, the request remained pending, leading to demurrage charges. Respondents contended that the amendment required a 'no objection certificate' from the original consignee, which was not submitted. The petitioner argued that reliance on Circular dated 11.04.2017 was unjustified, citing judgments from other High Courts where similar situations led to directions for decision on amendment requests. The Court directed the Competent Officer to finalize the claim for amendment within a week, considering the prolonged suffering of the petitioners due to the pending matter.

The main contention revolved around the requirement of a 'no objection certificate' for amending the IGM. The petitioner argued against this requirement, citing precedents where such insistence was deemed unjustified. The Court agreed that the claim for amendment needed consideration without strict adherence to the 'no objection certificate' condition. The judgment emphasized the need for a prompt decision by the Competent Officer to alleviate the daily suffering of the petitioners due to the unresolved amendment issue.

The judgment highlighted the importance of timely resolution of amendment requests under the Customs Act, 1962. It underscored the duty of the Competent Officer to consider such requests promptly, especially when the delay causes financial burdens on the petitioners. By referring to judgments from other High Courts, the Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach in interpreting regulations to ensure fairness and efficiency in customs procedures. The decision aimed to provide relief to the petitioners by directing a swift resolution of the pending amendment request, taking into account the legal precedents and the petitioners' ongoing financial losses.