2021 (7) TMI 969 - HC - Customs

Review petition - Rectification of error in the Judgement of the Court - Verification in respect of the Bill of Entry - Verification of country of origin - respondent filed their objection against the review petition and stated that there is nothing to be reviewed except a bonafide mistake that has crept in the order dated 26.04.2021 which is merely a bonafide typographical error - Rule 6(1)(b) of the CAROTAR, 2020 - HELD THAT - Since the errors in the judgment dated 26.04.2021 are apparent on the face of records. The line the petitioner may take release of the imported goods covered by Bill of Entry No.659,629/IMP/AGT-LCS/2020-21 dated 29.09.2020 without prejudice to his claim be deleted and substituted by the following sentence The petitioner may take release of the imported goods covered by Bills of Entry No.959298 IMP/AGT-LC/2020-21 dated 17.12.2020. This Court is of the view that the purported verification cannot be brought under Rule 6(1)(b) of the CAROTAR, 2020 as there is no expression to the effect that there is reason to believe that the Country of Origin criteria stated in the Certificate of Origin has not been met or the claim of preferential rate of duty made by the importer, the petitioner, is invalid. Even there is no document to show that specific information has been sought from the verifying authority. It appears further to this Court, this can be at best termed as measure of due diligence to verify whether the goods meet the origin criteria as claimed and thus, the said verification shall fall within the ambit of verification on random basis covered by Rule 6(1)(c) of CAROTAR, 2020. This Court is persuaded to direct the Customs the respondents No.2 and 3 to release ware-housed consignment of the petitioner as covered by the Bills of Entry No.959298 and INP/AGT-LC/2020-21 dated 17.12.2020 on obtaining an indemnity bond to the effect that on assessment of duty, after verification, if any of the petitioner is found liable to pay more duty, he shall pay such duty within a period of thirty days from the day when the order of assessment will be communicated to the petitioner, else the customs will be at liberty to take appropriate action in terms of law without further reference to the petitioner. Petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Review of judgment and order dated 26.04.2021.
2. Verification of Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020.
3. Provisional assessment and release of imported goods.
4. Application of Rule 6(1)(b) and Rule 6(1)(c) of CAROTAR, 2020.
5. Typographical error in the judgment dated 26.04.2021.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Review of Judgment and Order Dated 26.04.2021:
The review petitioner sought a review of the judgment and order dated 26.04.2021 under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC. The petitioner argued that the factual aspects related to the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020 were confused with those related to the Bill of Entry dated 29.09.2020. This confusion, according to the petitioner, led to an incorrect observation in the previous judgment.

2. Verification of Bill of Entry Dated 17.12.2020:
The petitioner contended that no verification had been initiated for the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020, and no record was produced by the respondents to support such verification. The respondents, however, stated that verification under Rule 6(1)(b) of CAROTAR, 2020 had been initiated and the petitioner was duly informed. The respondents emphasized that the verification was based on the need to ascertain the origin of goods, as the information provided was incomplete or insufficient.

3. Provisional Assessment and Release of Imported Goods:
The court noted that the Customs Act, 1962 allows for self-assessment of duty under Section 17 and provisional assessment under Section 18. The petitioner was informed about the option of securing customs clearance of goods through provisional assessment but did not exercise this option. The court directed the respondents to release the warehoused consignment on obtaining an indemnity bond from the petitioner, ensuring that any additional duty assessed after verification would be paid within thirty days.

4. Application of Rule 6(1)(b) and Rule 6(1)(c) of CAROTAR, 2020:
The court analyzed whether the verification fell under Rule 6(1)(b) or Rule 6(1)(c) of CAROTAR, 2020. Rule 6(1)(b) applies when there is reason to believe that the country of origin criteria have not been met, or the claim for preferential duty is invalid. Rule 6(1)(c) applies to random verification. The court found that the verification for the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020 did not meet the criteria for Rule 6(1)(b) and should be considered as random verification under Rule 6(1)(c). Consequently, no bank guarantee was required from the petitioner.

5. Typographical Error in the Judgment Dated 26.04.2021:
The court acknowledged a typographical error in the previous judgment, where the Bill of Entry dated 29.09.2020 was mentioned instead of the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020. The court corrected this error by substituting the relevant sentence with the correct Bill of Entry date.

Conclusion:
The court directed the customs authorities to release the warehoused consignment covered by the Bills of Entry dated 17.12.2020 upon receiving an indemnity bond from the petitioner. The court clarified that the verification was a random verification under Rule 6(1)(c) of CAROTAR, 2020, and no bank guarantee was required. The review petition was allowed to the extent of correcting the typographical error and clarifying the nature of the verification. There was no order as to costs, and a copy of the order was furnished to the counsel for the parties.

← Previous Next →