2023 (8) TMI 621 - AT - Customs

Benefit of exemption - Amendment in Bill of entry - Refund claims in respect of additional duty of customs leviable u/s 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - assessment order before Commissioner(Appeals) not challenged. Department is aggrieved with this order mainly on the ground that the once order of assessment is passed and the duty becomes liable to be paid, then unless the order of assessment has been reviewed under Section 18 or modified in appeal, the benefit of notification not claimed earlier cannot be claimed at appellate stage, after self assessment has been done and duty paid. HELD THAT - Section 149 permits amendment to documents including bill of entry even after clearance but on the basis of documentary evidence, which ought to be in existence at the time the goods were cleared. In view of definite findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), while permitting amendment that no new documents are being used fo claim of exemption and consequent upon making such amendment the proper officer shall re assess the bill of entry as per provision of Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Section 17(4) allows re assessment of self assessment on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise finding self assessment could be done correctly by the proper officer. The expression or otherwise is comprehensive to include judicial orders directing the same, when self assessment was not proper. Therefore, the amendment and reassessment to be carried out has been correctly allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and there are no infirmity in his order. Thus, the entitlement of a person, if it is eligible for exemption notification has to be liberally provided and amendment can be allowed even after clearance at any stage with in a reasonable time, as per law. Again, amendment once carried out, re assessment by the proper officer as per the direction of the higher Appellate Authority, shall definitely be the legal consequence to follow. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly interpreted the law by Ex Visceribus Actus by reading provisions of Section 149 relating to amendment of documents with Section 17 relating to various assessments, both of which were available with in the four corners of the statute and has correctly directed amendment and then reassessment under Section 17(4). Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement to refund claims for additional duty of customs (CVD).
2. Legality of self-assessment and subsequent amendment requests.
3. Requirement to challenge the assessment order before claiming a refund.
4. Applicability of exemption notifications and procedural compliance.
5. Interpretation of statutory provisions for reassessment and amendment.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Refund Claims for Additional Duty of Customs (CVD):
The respondent filed refund claims for additional duty of customs (CVD) paid on 'Vat Indigo Blue Dyes' under CTH 3204, asserting that they were exempt from CVD by virtue of Notification No. 04/2006-CE and subsequent Notification No. 12/2012-CE. The appellant-department assessed the Bills of Entries without granting the exemption, which the respondent claimed was a clerical error. The respondent sought amendment of documents under Section 154 read with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and consequential refund.

2. Legality of Self-Assessment and Subsequent Amendment Requests:
The appellant-department argued that under the self-assessment scheme implemented from 08.04.2011, it was the importer's responsibility to claim exemptions. The department contended that the respondent had sufficient opportunities to notice and request amendments for any mistakes but failed to do so. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the respondent's appeal, directing the amendment of the Bills of Entry under Section 149 and reassessment under Section 17, citing various case laws supporting the claim of exemption at any stage.

3. Requirement to Challenge the Assessment Order Before Claiming a Refund:
The appellant-department maintained that the refund claim was invalid as the respondent did not challenge the assessment order before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The respondent countered that they had requested the amendment and reassessment under Section 17(4) read with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and that the benefit of the exemption should be allowed irrespective of whether it was claimed at the time of import.

4. Applicability of Exemption Notifications and Procedural Compliance:
The respondent argued that the exemption notifications were unconditional and should have been applied by the customs authorities even if not initially claimed. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondent provided the required documents for amendment, which were available at the time of clearance, making them eligible for the amendment under Section 149. He directed the amendment and reassessment of the Bills of Entry, noting that the refund was within the time limit of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

5. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions for Reassessment and Amendment:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, stating that Section 149 permits amendments to documents, including Bills of Entry, even after clearance based on pre-existing documents. Section 17(4) allows reassessment of self-assessment if found incorrect on verification or otherwise. The Tribunal emphasized that the entitlement to exemption notifications should be liberally construed and amendments allowed within a reasonable time. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and rejected the department's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to allow the amendment and reassessment of the Bills of Entry, directing the customs authorities to grant the consequential refund of the excess duty paid by the respondent. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.