2014 (11) TMI 21 - AT - Customs

Amendment of four Shipping Bills for consideration of a portion of FOB value as DEPB item - Held that - There is not even a word on the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the rejection letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The said request should have been examined in the light of the provisions of Section 149 of the Act. If the software has blocked the Shipping Bills and the Shipping Bills are not available for amendment, the situation is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The department cannot take a ground that software does not permit and the amendment cannot be carried out. It was for the Revenue to ensure that the software developed is in line with the provisions of the Act which the department is implementing and it is the duty of the concerned officer to ensure that proper steps are taken. In any case, the amendment could have been carried out in the copy of the Shipping Bill which was made available to the appellant and there would be a copy available with the Customs which also can be used and in my opinion, the same should have been used. In view of this position, the matter is required to be remanded to the Commissioner who should consider the matter afresh in the light of the statutory provisions of law and pass an appropriate order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Request for amendment of Shipping Bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appellant requested an amendment to four Shipping Bills to consider a portion of FOB value as DEPB item, which was initially treated as non-DEPB item. The request was denied by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs citing unavailability of goods, expiration of the DEPB Scheme, and blocked LEOs in ICES for DEPB Shipping Bills. The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, leading to the current appeal.

The appellant argued that the amendment was sought in accordance with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and should have been considered as per the Act. The rejection based on software limitations was challenged, with reference to Board's Circular No. 26/2011-Cus., emphasizing the need to consider Let Export Orders (LEOs) for the Shipping Bills.

The Authorized Representative contended that the delay of over five months in submitting the application warranted the rejection of the request for amendment. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of any mention of Section 149 in the rejection letter, emphasizing that the request should have been evaluated in light of the statutory provisions. The Tribunal criticized the department's reliance on software limitations, stating that the Revenue must ensure software compliance with the law. The Tribunal suggested that amendments could have been made on available copies of the Shipping Bill and directed a remand to the Commissioner for a fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, for a reevaluation of the appellant's request in compliance with statutory provisions, allowing the appellant an opportunity to present their case.