2021 (12) TMI 89 - AT - Customs

Seeking amendment of drawback serial number in the shipping bills - appellant procured Brass Artwares from local market falling under tariff heading 74199930 and exported the same - rejection of the request without any reasoning - the request was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that whatever amendment sought by the appellant is not based on the existing documents and the documents is not in possession of the proper officer - HELD THAT - These findings are apparently incorrect on the face of documents such as export invoices which clearly contained the correct HS Code 74199930. However, inadvertently in the shipping bills the incorrect drawback serial number 741802B was mentioned. In this position, it cannot be said that the amendment sought by the appellant is not on the basis of documents existing at the time of export and not in the possession of proper officer. The invoices and the packing list is basic documents and these documents are very much in the possession of officer who is supposed to check at the time filing the shipping bills. The appellant is squarely covered by the statutory provisions of Section 149 and proviso thereto - the appellant is entitled for amendment in the shipping bills and consequent differential drawback - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Amendment of drawback serial number in shipping bills.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in the manufacture and export of brass articles, seeking amendment in the drawback serial number mentioned in the shipping bills. The appellant procured Brass Artwares locally and exported them, mentioning an incorrect drawback serial number. The appellant requested amendment to reflect the correct serial number, but the request was rejected by the Joint Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the correct serial number was mentioned in export invoices and that the amendment was legitimate under Section 149. The appellant cited various judgments and circulars to support their claim.

The appellant contended that the rejection of the request for amendment was based on incorrect grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the amendment on the basis that the requested change was not supported by existing documents and that the proper officer did not possess the relevant documents. However, upon review, it was found that the correct HS Code was mentioned in the export invoices, indicating that the amendment sought by the appellant was based on existing documents. The documents, such as invoices and packing lists, were in possession of the officer responsible for verifying the shipping bills. Therefore, the rejection of the amendment request was deemed incorrect, and the appellant was entitled to the requested amendment under Section 149 and its proviso.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and examining the documents, concluded that the appellant's case fell within the purview of Section 149 and its proviso. It was established that the requested amendment in the shipping bills was valid and based on existing documents available at the time of export. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellant were allowed. The judgment was pronounced on 02.12.2021 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, with detailed reasoning provided for overturning the rejection of the amendment request.