2023 (9) TMI 422 - AT - Customs

Refund of the excess duty paid - valuation of software - goods imported by the appellant were not examined at the time of import - revised purchase order and revised invoice generated at a later date by the supplier on the request of the appellant - HELD THAT - For invoking Section 149, relevant documents should have been in existence at the time of import but in this case, obviously the invoice was revised based on the request of the appellant and the veracity of the genuineness of this invoice could not be verified since the goods were not examined at the time of import nor were available for examination. The Supreme Court in the case of ESCORTS LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1994 (2) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT observed that it may be noticed that the Act does not prescribe any particular form in which the order of assessment is to be made. In the very nature of things, no formal order of assessment can be expected when there is no dispute as to the classification or the rate of duty, no formal order can be expected in such a case, it is more like across-the-counter affair. Section 149 amendments cannot be read in isolation making these sections with regard to classification or valuation redundant. Reassessment of any assessment cannot be equated with an amendment under Section 149. The legislature, in the interest of justice, has not laid down any time limit under Section 149, does not take away the fact that any changes in valuation should not be in tandem with the laws laid down for refund or demand or else there will be no end for amendments which will result in utter chaos and de-stabilize the entire gamut of the Customs Act, 1962. In the present case, first of all, no documents existed at the time of assessment and the documents produced for amendment were not available at the time of assessment, these surfaced at much later date. The goods were not examined and the invoice produced by the appellant at the time of import had no factual errors and therefore to change the value of the imported goods based on an amended purchase order and revised invoice will not be a simplicitor amendment envisaged under Section 149. Moreover, the Commissioner (A) has clearly observed that there is no evidence to indicate that this revised purchase order and the revised invoice related to the transaction already completed - There are no evidences produced till date with regard to the revised transactions as to how the differential amounts reflect in the books of accounts of the supplier as well as the appellant. In view of the above, the question of considering change in value as mere amendment as per Section 14 read with Section 149 is ruled out. Therefore, the Commissioner (A) was right in rejecting these changes and in disallowing reassessment of the imported goods. The appeal is rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Clerical Error and Amendment of Bill of Entry under Section 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Reassessment of Goods and Refund of Excess Duty Paid.

Summary:

Issue 1: Clerical Error and Amendment of Bill of Entry under Section 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962

The appellant, M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd., imported software and declared a higher value, resulting in excess customs duty payment. They sought to amend the Bill of Entry under Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, claiming a clerical error. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that Section 149 allows amendments based on existing documentary evidence at the time of import, and Section 154 deals with clerical mistakes. Since the error was not clerical and the revised documents were not available at the time of import, both sections were ruled out. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that amendments under Section 149 require documents in existence at the time of import, which was not the case here.

Issue 2: Reassessment of Goods and Refund of Excess Duty Paid

The appellant argued that the correct price was quoted in their initial purchase order, but an incorrect higher value was declared in the Bill of Entry. They requested reassessment and refund based on revised purchase orders and invoices generated later. The Tribunal noted that the goods were not examined at the time of import, and the revised documents were not available then. Citing various judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that reassessment and amendments cannot be claimed routinely and must be based on documentary evidence existing at the time of import. The request for reassessment was rejected as the revised documents could not be verified, and there was no evidence linking them to the original transaction.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim for reassessment and refund based on revised documents generated post-import was not permissible under Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act. The appeal was rejected, upholding the Commissioner's decision.