2010 (3) TMI 301 - HC - Customs

IGM- Petitioner entering into contract, agreeing to buy goods and seeking amendment to IGM. Amendment denied by the revenue relying on public Notice No. 2/2010, dated 14.01.2010 of Mumbai Commissionerate clarifying that amendment not possible if consignee named first already filed B/E and has neither withdrawn nor given NOC for such amendment. Held- section 30 (3) of Custom Act, 1962 states that proper officer may permit IGM to be amended or supplemented if satisfied that import manifest in any way incorrect/incomplete and there is no fraudulent intention. Impugned Public Notice only non exhaustive guideline covering only part of the problem. Proper officer bound to consider case independent to guidelines. Statutory discretion can not be fettered by self created rules or policy. Order refusing to grant amendment set aside and matter restored to deputy commissioner in appropriate proceedings.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to public notice and order regarding amendment of consignee name in the IGM under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

Factual Matrix:
The case involves a dispute arising from the sale of imported goods by a Brazilian company to a US company, where the consignment was to be delivered at Nhava Sheva Port, Navi Mumbai. Issues arose when the consignee name in the Bills of Lading needed to be amended due to non-fulfillment by the original consignees. The petitioner sought to substitute their name as the consignee for certain bills of lading, leading to a challenge against a public notice prohibiting such amendments.

Contentions:
The petitioner argued that under section 30 of the Customs Act, the proper officer can permit amendments to the Import General Manifest (IGM) if there is no fraudulent intention. The petitioner contended that the refusal to allow the amendment without proper investigation or hearing was not a judicious exercise of power. On the other hand, respondent parties argued that as the first purchasers and importers of goods, the IGM could not be amended without their consent.

Legal Analysis:
Section 30(3) of the Customs Act empowers the proper officer to permit amendments to the import manifest if there is no fraudulent intent. The court emphasized that the guidelines in the public notice dated 14th January 2010 were not exhaustive and did not cover all scenarios under Section 30(3). The court cited precedent to highlight that failure to exercise discretion under statutory powers allows for judicial intervention. It was reiterated that statutory discretion cannot be restricted by self-imposed rules or policies, and the proper officer must consider each case on its merits, following principles of natural justice.

The Decision:
The High Court set aside the order refusing the amendment to the IGM and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs with a reasoned order following principles of natural justice within four weeks. The validity of the public notice was left open for future consideration. The court emphasized the need for the proper officer to exercise statutory discretion in individual cases without being bound by self-imposed rules, policies, or public notices. The ruling made the rule absolute with no order as to costs, keeping all rival contentions on merits open for further proceedings.