2023 (6) TMI 800 - HC - Customs

Refusing permission to the petitioner to correct certain entries in the shipping bills - due to an inadvertent error, the petitioner entered a scheme code relating to the Duty Draw Back Scheme (Scheme Code No. 19) instead of the scheme code applicable to Duty Free Import Authorisation Scheme (scheme code No. 26) - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - There is considerable merit in the contention taken by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that since Ext. P18 was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, that order is liable to be set aside on that short ground alone. It is not evident from Ext. P18 that the same was issued after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of stating its case. Considering the nature of the order it was only appropriate that a decision was taken on Ext. P17 application after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The matter is remitted to the competent authority, who shall take a fresh decision in the matter after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and having regard to the provisions of Section 149 of the Act and Circular No. 36/2010 - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to refusal of permission to correct entries in shipping bills under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an Exporter, filed shipping bills with certain errors and sought correction through a writ petition challenging the refusal of permission by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The error involved entering a scheme code for 'Duty Draw Back Scheme' instead of the applicable 'Duty Free Import Authorisation Scheme.' The petitioner relied on Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for amendments to shipping bills. Additionally, Circular No. 36/2010 issued by the Board provided instructions on amending shipping bills. The respondent Department argued that the application was not for an amendment but for a conversion to a more rigorous scheme, which was not permissible under Section 149 of the Act.

The Court noted that the order refusing permission was issued without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, which was a procedural flaw. The Court emphasized the importance of affording the petitioner a chance to present its case before deciding on such matters. Therefore, the Court quashed the order and remitted the matter to the competent authority for a fresh decision. The competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application after providing an opportunity for a hearing and in compliance with Section 149 of the Act and Circular No. 36/2010. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the petitioner's entitlement to amend the shipping bills, leaving it to the competent authority to decide in accordance with the law. The competent authority was given a timeline of two months to act upon the judgment.