2021 (9) TMI 869 - HC - Customs

Amendment of Bill of Entry - seeking amendment in GSTIN and the address in the BOE dated August 07 2020 - section 149 of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - The decision in MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2018 (12) TMI 802 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT with due respect proceeds to read the only proviso to section 149 (as it then stood) in a constricted manner as if the words except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared deposited or exported as the case may be are not there in such proviso. However it could be so that the interpretation placed by the Court on the first proviso is correct for the purpose of determination of the issue arising for decision therein i.e. rejection of the petitioner s refund claims for the period between July 2014 and June 2015. We therefore hold that such interpretation of section 149 as made by the coordinate Bench turns on the facts and circumstances of the case before it. The decision in DIMENSION DATA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND ANR. 2021 (1) TMI 1042 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT correctly interprets section 149 and we share the view expressed therein that amendment to the Bill of Entry is clearly permissible even in a situation where the goods are cleared. The petitioners had prayed for amendment of documents only which is squarely covered under section 149 of the Act any deficiency in the system cannot be used by the respondents as a shield so as to deny relief to a party; if indeed the system does not permit the deficiency has to be covered up manually until improvements are effected in the system for such amendment. We also record not having been shown from the reply-affidavit that even a manual amendment is not possible - the grounds for not allowing amendments are clearly untenable and hence judicial interdiction for securing justice in the present cases is considered necessary. Petition disposed of by directing the concerned respondent to consider the applications for amendment of the documents of the respective petitioners in accordance with law upon granting the authorized representative of the petitioners an opportunity of hearing as early as possible but not later than four weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of Bill of Entry - Change in GSTIN and address requested by petitioner.
2. Legality of impugned order declining amendment of Bill of Entry after 'Out of Charge'.
3. Interpretation of section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 in light of previous judgments.
4. Compliance with judgments from other High Courts regarding amendment of documents.
5. Discrepancy in allowing manual amendments and system limitations under Indian Customs EDI System.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved two writ petitions seeking amendments to the Bill of Entry. The first petitioner requested changes in GSTIN and address, citing section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The second petitioner challenged an order declining amendment after 'Out of Charge'.

2. The Court considered the interpretation of section 149, noting a previous judgment allowing amendments even after goods are cleared. The Court also referenced a Madras High Court decision emphasizing the need for system updates to facilitate manual amendments.

3. The respondents relied on a previous decision stating that no amendment can be made after goods are 'out of charge'. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing the discretion of the proper officer under section 149 to authorize amendments.

4. Compliance with judgments from other High Courts was cited, indicating that the respondents had allowed similar amendments in the past. The Court emphasized the importance of consistency in decision-making across different jurisdictions.

5. The Court addressed the discrepancy between manual amendments and system limitations under the Indian Customs EDI System. It ruled that any deficiency in the system cannot be used to deny relief to petitioners, and if necessary, manual amendments should be considered until system improvements are made. The Court granted the requested amendments and directed the concerned respondents to consider the applications promptly.