2017 (3) TMI 909 - AT - Customs

Amendment to Bill of Entry - It is a case of the appellant that, at the time of shipment of the goods, the certificate of origin was not provided by the exporter from Korea, which was subsequently provided. Subsequently on receipt of the certificate of origin the respondent-assessee filed the claim for amendment of the Bill of Entry and to allow the benefit of exemption under the said notification - Held that - the issue involved herein is no longer res-integra, under the similar facts and circumstances in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (10) TMI 726 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , where it was held that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in rejecting the appeal and it is clear case of failure of his part to exercise jurisdiction - amendment in bills of entry allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Amendment of the bill of entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 187/2009-Cus (NT) dated 31/12/2009.

Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Noida. The respondent-assessee imported consignments from Korea and filed Bills of Entry. The appellant claimed a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 151/2009-Cus, which provides a nil rate of duty for goods originating from the Republic of Korea. However, the certificate of origin was not provided by the exporter at the time of shipment, leading to the appellant being unable to claim the benefit initially. Subsequently, upon receiving the certificate, the respondent-assessee filed for amendment of the Bill of Entry to claim the exemption under the said notification.

2. Amendment of Bill of Entry:
The Revenue contended that the amendment in the Bill of Entry was not permissible under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on documents/certificate of origin issued retrospectively. The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to verify the claim of the appellant and allow the same after authenticating the Certificate of Origin. The appellant was given an opportunity to present their case within 45 days.

3. Decision and Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and upheld the Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision to allow the amendment in the Bills of Entry. Consequently, the appeal of Revenue was dismissed, and the respondent-assessee was entitled to any consequential benefits as per the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of verifying claims and ensuring authenticity before allowing amendments in the Bills of Entry to claim exemptions under relevant notifications.

This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the judgment, focusing on the amendment process, legal provisions, and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondent-assessee based on the specific circumstances and relevant notifications.