2017 (7) TMI 7 - AT - Customs

Amendment in shipping bills - benefit of DFIA licence - Held that - due to oversight and mistake on the part of Custom House Agent, who has mentioned the code as 00 instead of 03 will not disentitle the appellant to claim the benefit of export incentives provided under the scheme - it is well settled law that the procedures are meant for furthering the justice and not to hamper them. It can be seen that the amendment of shipping bill is permitted in case such amendment is on the basis of documentary evidence which is in existence at the time of export of the goods whereas in the present case, the shipping bills as well as the invoices clearly mentions regarding the filing number of DFIA licence and VKGUY scheme - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of request for conversion in shipping bill for export under DFIA and VKGUY scheme.

Analysis:
The appellant filed shipping bill for export under DFIA and VKGUY scheme, later requested for conversion which was rejected by the Commissioner citing Circular No.4/2004. The Commissioner held that the request for change in scheme cannot be termed as an amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant claimed that the rejection was contrary to law and export incentive schemes, and argued that the mistake in code was bona fide and rectifiable under the law. The appellant relied on various decisions to support their claim.

The appellant intended to claim export incentives at the time of export, as evidenced by mentioning DFIA file number and VKGUY scheme on shipping bill. Despite initial rejection, the DGFT accepted the exports under DFIA scheme and issued licenses after clarification by the appellant. The appellant simultaneously claimed benefits under both schemes, and the customs department was criticized for rejecting the amendment application. The appellant argued that there is no time limit for filing amendments under Section 149 of the Customs Act, supported by relevant case laws.

Upon reviewing submissions and documents, the Tribunal found that the appellant rightfully claimed benefits under DFIA and VKGUY schemes at the time of export, and the mistake in the code should not disqualify them from incentives. The Tribunal noted that DGFT accepted the exports under DFIA scheme and issued licenses based on appellant's clarification. The Tribunal emphasized that procedures should facilitate justice, not hinder it, and highlighted the importance of documentary evidence existing at the time of export. The Commissioner's failure to consider the certification of VKGUY script and the material difference between VKGUY and DFIA schemes led the Tribunal to conclude that the rejection of the amendment was not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed with any necessary consequential relief.