2012 (10) TMI 170 - AT - Customs

Requested for amendment in the Bills of Entry - According to the appellant, due to clerical/arithmetical error, all the Bills of Entry were assessed to duty @ 15% while Notification No.11/2005, prescribed the rate of duty as 10% ad valorem for import of Low Density Polyethylene Held that - Amendment has to be allowed when a request is based on documentary evidence, which was in existence at the time of clearance of the goods - Petitioner has paid the duty under mistake of law and or in the instant case by oversight, cannot result in being assessed to duty which was otherwise not payable assessing officer has a duty to assess according to the law and refusal to amend the document would result in an irregular assessment - in terms of provisions of Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962, the Bill of Entry allowed to be amended Refund Held that - Relief of refund claimed is not maintainable before the order of assessment is amended or modified - he has not passed on the duties and as such the question of unjust enrichment would not arise in the matter

Summary

Issues:
Request for amendment in Bills of Entry under Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 - Rejection by Assistant Commissioner - Appeal against the rejection - Applicability of Notification No.11/2005 - Clerical/arithmetical error in assessment - Interpretation of Sections 149 and 154 of Customs Act, 1962 - Relevant case laws supporting the appellant's claim.

Analysis:
The appellant requested an amendment in Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, citing clerical/arithmetical errors in the assessment of duty at 15% instead of the prescribed 10% ad valorem rate under Notification No.11/2005. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the request, stating it pertained to re-assessment and was not appealable. The appellate authority upheld this decision, emphasizing that failure to claim a notification's benefit was not a clerical error. The appellant argued that the assessment was inadvertently done at 15% and relied on legal precedents, including a Mumbai High Court case and a Kerala High Court case, supporting correction of errors under Section 154. The Revenue contended it was the appellant's omission that led to the higher duty rate, not covered under Section 149.

Upon analyzing Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal noted that Section 149 allows amendments based on documentary evidence existing at the time of goods clearance, with exceptions for fraudulent intent. Citing the Mumbai High Court case, the Tribunal highlighted the authority's duty to assess goods in accordance with the law and the injustice of demanding duty not otherwise payable due to oversight. The Kerala High Court decision also supported correction even if it led to a higher duty rate. Consequently, the Tribunal found both legal precedents aligned with the appellant's claim and concluded that the Bill of Entry should have been allowed for amendment under Section 149, ruling in favor of the appellant with consequential relief granted.

In summary, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the interpretation of Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, supported by relevant legal precedents, to uphold the appellant's request for amendment in the Bills of Entry due to clerical/arithmetical errors in duty assessment, ultimately allowing the appeal and providing relief to the appellant.