9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1132 - AT - CustomsSeeking amendment/modification in the bills of entry - appellant wrongly indicated the number of pieces imported - HELD THAT - Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for making amendment to the Bill of Entry. As per the same, the Bill of Entry could have been modified by the Revenue authorities to correct the clerical error made by the appellant under self-assessment or in assessment by the Revenue. The said Bill of Entry was filed on the basis of commercial invoice indicating number of quantity as 2760 pieces of Backlit LED Panel, whereas on the Bill of Entry the total quantity has been mentioned as 5520 pieces. The error is evident as the invoice number is also matching. These errors can be considered for making amendment as provided for under Section 149. The matter needs reconsideration by the original authority for amending the Bill of Entry accordingly and reassessing the same - the matter is remanded back to the original authority with the direction to consider the application made under Section 149 of the Customs Act on the basis of documents submitted, as per law - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Incorrect declaration on Bill of Entry 2. Request for amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 3. Applicability of judgments on assessment orders and refund claims Analysis: Issue 1: Incorrect declaration on Bill of Entry The appeal was against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Mumbai-II, regarding an incorrect declaration on the Bill of Entry. The appellant imported Backlit LED Panels and mistakenly indicated a wrong quantity on one of the Bills of Entry, leading to an excess payment of duty. The error was acknowledged, and the appellant sought modification of the Bill of Entry to rectify the mistake. Issue 2: Request for amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for amendments to a Bill of Entry based on documentary evidence existing at the time of clearance of goods. The appellant submitted various documents supporting the excess duty payment claim. However, the Commissioner noted that the importer did not opt for examination or inform Customs Authorities of the mistake during the initial stages, raising concerns about the timing of the appeal for amendment. Issue 3: Applicability of judgments on assessment orders and refund claims The Commissioner relied on precedents like ITC Ltd vs CCE Kolkata and Prem Nath Diesels (P) Ltd. vs Collector of Customs, Calcutta, highlighting the importance of challenging assessment orders before seeking modifications. The Commissioner emphasized that corrections should have been made before clearance of goods, and subsequent claims for re-classification or refund after clearance may be rejected if goods are not available for verification. In the final judgment, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the original authority to consider the application for amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act. The authority was directed to reassess the Bill of Entry based on the documents submitted by the appellant. The Tribunal specified that all consequences of the order on the application under Section 149 should apply to the appellant, and the authority was instructed to decide the matter within three months of receiving the order. Overall, the judgment focused on the procedural aspects of amending a Bill of Entry under Section 149, the timing of corrections, and the implications of challenging assessment orders before seeking modifications. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for reconsideration by the original authority aimed to rectify the error in the Bill of Entry and ensure proper assessment based on the submitted documents.
|
