1986 (10) TMI 245 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 16(1) of the Customs Act regarding the applicability of duty rates in the case of amendments to a shipping bill.
2. Validity of the refund claim based on the change in vessel name in the shipping bill.
3. The authority's discretion in permitting amendments to shipping bills and its impact on duty rates.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of duty rates in a shipping bill amendment scenario. The appellant Collector argued that Section 16(1) of the Customs Act only applies to original shipping bills, not to subsequent amendments like changing the vessel name. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that if an amendment is sought, authorities can either allow it or request a fresh shipping bill. In this case, the shipping bill was amended to reflect the vessel "M.V. President Wilson" instead of "M.V. President Eisenhower." The export took place through the amended vessel, and entry outwards was granted on 10-6-1981. The Tribunal held that the date of the amended shipping bill should determine duty rates, regardless of amendments, as per Section 16 of the Act.

The main contention was whether the amendment to the shipping bill affected the duty rates applicable. The Tribunal clarified that the authorities' decision to permit the amendment did not alter the application of Section 16. Even though a fresh shipping bill could have been requested with the correct vessel name, the amendment was allowed, and the export occurred through the amended vessel. Therefore, the duty rates should be based on the date of the amended shipping bill, which was after the entry outwards date for the vessel. Consequently, the Appellate Collector's order directing a refund was upheld, and the appeal by the Collector of Customs, Madras, was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed that the provisions of Section 16 of the Customs Act apply to amended shipping bills, and duty rates should be determined based on the date of the amended bill. The discretion of the authorities in permitting amendments does not negate the application of the statutory provisions. As a result, the refund claim was deemed valid, and the appeal against the Appellate Collector's order was dismissed.