2024 (5) TMI 527 - AT - Customs

Export of ciprofloxacin tablets - Conversion (Amendment) of shipping bills - substitution of scheme code 19 by scheme code 03 in the shipping bills and related invoices - benefits of a scheme - drawback - advance authorisation for procurement of ciprofloxacin API as inputs against invalidation letters - HELD THAT - The scope of section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 is statutorily circumscribed by the framework of the provision. It is intended for rectification of documents issued by parties to a commercial engagement which is, thereby, transposed into the statutorily prescribed entry envisaged by section 46 and section 50 of Customs Act, 1962. The empowerment stands on its own, and subject only to verifiability of facts as available on date of import or export, as the case may be. No other intrusion may be permitted to influence the disposal of request for amendment. The impugned circular suffers from the pre-disposition to perceive all, and any, request for amendment in terms of the consequences whereas the consequences to assessment of any benefit stems from another statutory provision which the designated authority is required to dispose off in accordance with the facts and the statutory framework of that empowerment. The convergence of the two in the impugned circular has had the effect of excoriating a jurisdiction contrary to legislated empowerment. We are led to conclude that the impugned order is in error. A contrary view would have the effect of allowing the jurisdiction in section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 to overwhelm the jurisdiction to decide as empowered by Customs Act, 1962 or any other law. Thus, we set aside the impugned order and direct the competent authority to dispose off the request of the applicant without considering the benefits that may flow thereby and strictly restricting itself to the judicial determination set out in the several decisions supra.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of application for amendment of shipping bills.
2. Authority and applicability of circular no. 36/2010-Cus.
3. Scope and interpretation of section 149 of Customs Act, 1962.
4. Legal precedents and judicial pronouncements on the issue.

Summary:

The limited issue in this appeal of M/s Pinnacle Life Science Pvt Ltd is the denial of their application for amendment of shipping bills filed for export of goods undertaken by them ostensibly in pursuance of obligation arising from utilization of three 'advance authorisation' for procurement of 'ciprofloxacin API' as 'inputs' against 'invalidation letters' within the framework of the eponymous scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP).

1. Denial of Application for Amendment of Shipping Bills: The appellant claimed that they inadvertently omitted to include details of the 'advance authorisations' in the shipping bills and related invoices, instead declaring them under 'scheme code 19' for drawback entitlement against the eligible 'scheme code 03'. The request u/s 149 of Customs Act, 1962 was rejected based on the framework of circular no. 36/2010-Cus dated 23rd September 2010.

2. Authority and Applicability of Circular No. 36/2010-Cus: The circular restricts conversion of shipping bills to certain classes and imposes conditions such as the request being made within three months from the date of Let Export Order (LEO). The Learned Authorised Representative contended that the appeal lacks merit due to the less rigorous scheme of examination for drawback claims. However, the appellant argued that the circular lacks authority as the empowerment to prescribe restrictions and conditions was incorporated in section 149 only by Finance Act, 2019.

3. Scope and Interpretation of Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962: The section is intended for rectification of documents issued by parties to a commercial engagement, subject only to verifiability of facts as available on the date of import or export. The impugned circular was criticized for predisposing all amendment requests in terms of consequences, contrary to the legislated empowerment. The Tribunal emphasized that amendments should be allowed based on documentary evidence existing at the time of export, without undue influence from the consequences of such amendments.

4. Legal Precedents and Judicial Pronouncements: The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Colossustex Private Ltd striking down the restrictions in the circular for lack of statutory authority was highlighted. The Tribunal also referred to its own decision in Seco Tools India Pvt Ltd, which elaborated that the proper officer may authorize amendments based on existing documentary evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was in error and directed the competent authority to dispose off the request without considering the benefits that may flow thereby, strictly adhering to the judicial determination set out in several decisions.

(Order pronounced in open court on 07.05.2024)