2023 (6) TMI 16 - AT - Customs

Seeking amendment in the shipping bill - In the Shipping Bill, the appellant had initially mentioned the code 9801 , instead of the applicable code for Brand rate fixation as 980788411B - amendment was sought on the ground that the appellant was intending to claim brand rate of drawback in terms of Circular No. 29/2015-Customs dated 16.11.2015 - Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. HELD THAT - The appellants wanted to impress upon the fact that the Brand Rate Fixation claim was existed at the time of export and thus, the application was appropriately made for amendment of the Shipping Bill in terms of Section 149 and Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, on examination of the orders passed by the lower authorities, it is found that the reference of documents relied upon by the appellants in this appeal were not at all considered by them and the claim of the appellants for amendment of the shipping bill was denied solely on the ground that the appellants did not submit any documentary evidence available at the time of export to substantiate their claim for amendment of the shipping bill. The provisions for amendment of documents are contained in Section 149 ibid. It has been mandated that the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorize any document, after it has been presented in the Customs House to be amended. The proviso clause appended to Section 149 ibid provides that no amendment of a shipping bill shall be authorized to be amended after the goods have been exported, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared - In the present case, though the appellants have claimed that the provisions of Section 149 ibid have been duly complied by them, but the request letter for amendment of the shipping bill was turned down by the authorities on the ground that no documents were submitted to demonstrate that such amendment merits consideration in respect of the exports already made. Thus, under such circumstances, the lower authority should properly examine the documentary evidence submitted by the appellants for proper appreciation of the fact regarding amendment of the shipping bill. Further, Section 154 ibid provides for the mechanism of correction of clerical errors, etc. in any decision or order passed by the officer of customs. In the case in hand, though the appellants had claimed that due to typographical error, the shipping bill has wrongly claimed the duty Drawback under Sr. No. 98.01, but the available documents, including the email correspondences proved the fact that the correct classification reference should be under Entry 84.11.82.20. However, with regard to the prayer made for correction of such error or mistake had not been addressed by the authorities below. The matter should go back to the original authority to properly examine the issue, whether the documents based on which the amendment is sought for by the appellants were present at the time of exportation of the subject goods or arranged subsequently by them for obtaining the benefit of Drawback - the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority for de novo adjudication of the matter. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The case involves the amendment of a Shipping Bill for claiming brand rate of drawback under DEEC scheme, denial of amendment request by lower authorities, and the appellant's contention regarding the existence of documentary evidence prior to export.

Amendment of Shipping Bill:
The appellant, M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, sought an amendment in the Shipping Bill to correct the code for brand rate fixation from '9801' to '980788411B'. The request was based on the intention to claim brand rate of drawback in accordance with Circular No. 29/2015-Customs. However, the request was rejected by the adjudicating authority citing lack of evidence to prove the genuineness of the error. The appellant contended that the amendment was justified as the evidence existed prior to export, and no fresh documentation was done post-export. The appellant also argued that the Drawback Rules do not restrict such amendments and that errors can be corrected under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Appellant's Contentions:
The appellant presented various facts to support their claim for amendment, including details of the export goods covered under Advance Authorization License and Drawback under Brand Rate Scheme. They highlighted the issuance of relevant licenses, invoices mentioning HSN Classification, and applications filed for Brand Rate Fixation of Drawback within the stipulated timeframe. The appellant emphasized that the Brand Rate Fixation claim existed at the time of export, justifying the request for amendment under Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Legal Provisions:
The Tribunal examined Section 149 of the Customs Act, which allows for the amendment of documents presented in the Customs House, subject to certain conditions. The provision specifies that amendments to a shipping bill after export are allowed based on documentary evidence existing at the time of clearance. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities denied the amendment solely due to the lack of submitted documentary evidence at the time of export, disregarding the documents referenced by the appellant in the appeal.

Remand for Reconsideration:
Considering the statutory provisions and the appellant's contentions, the Tribunal opined that the lower authority should reassess the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant for the proper evaluation of the amendment request. Additionally, Section 154 of the Customs Act allows for the correction of clerical errors, which the authorities failed to address in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the documentary evidence and granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the original authority to conduct a de novo adjudication based on the observations made. The appellant was instructed to submit documentary evidence, and a reasoned order was to be passed considering the evidences available in the case file. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2023.