9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 983 - AT - CustomsAmendment in the shipping bill - legislative design of section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 amenable to stretching beyond that suggested by the phraseology to consider consequences as essential to disposal of requests preferred for amendment - HELD THAT - The amendment sought by the appellant does not involve change of any of the particulars mandated for inclusion under the authority of section 50 of Customs Act, 1962. Nor is there any plea for alteration of endorsement, if any, made in the shipping bills under the authority of section 51 of Customs Act, 1962. All that the appellant seeks is the substitution of N with Y in these bills and, that too, owing to manual facilitation not available as alternative, solely for the purpose of making shipment particulars accessible to the licencing authority. Cavil of the appellant is that the denial of authorization to alter the option in the impugned shipping bills is improper and discriminatory as several decisions cited supra have held otherwise. The statutorily-mandated inclusions in shipping bills, of any hue, are borne within the regulations for implementation of section 50 of Customs Act, 1962; any other is mere piggyback riding prompted by convenient proximity of transaction of relevance which, in the impugned instances, is the trans-authority seepage of information. The subsequent authority conducts its own post-sanction verification for maintaining the integrity of the scheme without recourse to either the preceding authority or its transactional engagement with exporter. Failure on the part of the appellant to indicate the desired option in the impugned shipping bill has not vitiated the clearance of the goods covered by the shipping bills or of exports having been effected; the only consequence has been the impassability of the data relating to these exports to the electronic space dominated by the authority competent to grant the reward which they claim to be eligible for and which is yet to be determined. It would appear from the contents of the impugned order and the submissions of Learned Authorized Representative that the onus devolving on the applicant to produce documentary evidence of intent to avail the benefit accruing from merchandise exports from India scheme (MEIS) on exports effected by them has drawn sustenance from two public notices issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and without considering the lack of significance therein, by assigning or by implication, to the assessment responsibility, or the gateway positioning, of customs authorities. Neither did the public notices seek to draw upon the statutory power of amendment conferred by the customs statute for regularization within the initial window of opportunity - The amendment, which merely has the consequence of data transference for informed decision making on eligibility for reward by competent authority, should have been permitted unless established evidence exists that the goods were not in conformity with details furnished in the shipping bills. No notice to that effect had been issued to enable refuting of such presumption. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Mandatory declaration of intent for rewards under MEIS. 3. Documentary evidence requirement for amendments under Section 149. 4. Jurisdiction and discretion of customs authorities. 5. Procedural errors and their rectification. 6. Time limitations for amendment requests. 7. Judicial precedents on similar issues. 8. Role of customs authorities in the MEIS scheme. Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962: The primary issue addressed was whether the legislative design of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be extended beyond its phraseology to consider consequences essential to the disposal of amendment requests. The Tribunal concluded that the amendment sought by the appellant, which involved changing 'N' to 'Y' in shipping bills, did not involve any changes to particulars mandated under Section 50 or endorsements under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal emphasized that the scope of Section 149 allows for amendments based on documentary evidence existing at the time of exportation. 2. Mandatory Declaration of Intent for Rewards under MEIS: The Tribunal examined the requirement for exporters to declare their intent to claim rewards under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) by ticking 'Y' in shipping bills, as mandated by the Handbook of Procedures and Circular No. 14/2015-Cus. It was noted that this declaration was crucial for the licencing authority to process rewards and that the failure to tick 'Y' resulted in data not being transmitted to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). 3. Documentary Evidence Requirement for Amendments under Section 149: The Tribunal scrutinized the requirement for documentary evidence to support amendments under Section 149. The impugned order rejected the appellant's request on the grounds of lack of documentary evidence and being time-barred. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's request for amendment was procedural and not fatal to their claim. The Tribunal held that the absence of documentary evidence of intent to avail MEIS benefits oversimplified the issue and did not justify the rejection. 4. Jurisdiction and Discretion of Customs Authorities: The Tribunal criticized the customs authority for labeling the appellant's inclusion as 'lackadaisical attitude' and emphasized that such attitudes have no place in customs law. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority should have sought explanations from the appellant before making observations on their behavior. The Tribunal also highlighted that the discretion to permit amendments under Section 149 should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. 5. Procedural Errors and Their Rectification: The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant's failure to tick 'Y' in the shipping bills was an inadvertent clerical error. The Tribunal noted that similar errors had been rectified in other cases and that the appellant's request for amendment was justified. The Tribunal emphasized that the procedural error should not prevent the appellant from availing the benefits of the MEIS scheme. 6. Time Limitations for Amendment Requests: The Tribunal addressed the issue of time limitations for amendment requests, noting that the relevant circular prescribing time limits was issued after the appellant's request. The Tribunal held that the rejection of the appellant's request based on time limitations was not supported by the authority of law. The Tribunal emphasized that amendments under Section 149 should be permitted based on the facts at the time of exportation and not merely on the elapse of time. 7. Judicial Precedents on Similar Issues: The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents where similar amendments were allowed, including decisions by the High Courts of Bombay, Kerala, Gujarat, and Madras. The Tribunal noted that these precedents supported the appellant's case and directed the substitution of 'N' with 'Y' in the shipping bills. The Tribunal emphasized that the rejection of the appellant's request was inconsistent with these judicial precedents. 8. Role of Customs Authorities in the MEIS Scheme: The Tribunal clarified that the role of customs authorities in the MEIS scheme is limited to statutory assignments under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the scheme is administered by the DGFT and that customs authorities should not adopt a supervisory role beyond their statutory mandate. The Tribunal emphasized that the customs authorities should facilitate the processing of rewards under the MEIS scheme without imposing unnecessary restrictions. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the amendment of 'N' to 'Y' in the shipping bills to enable the DGFT to undertake its responsibilities under the MEIS scheme. The Tribunal emphasized that the rejection of the appellant's request was improper and not supported by the authority of law. The Tribunal highlighted the need for customs authorities to exercise their discretion judiciously and facilitate trade by allowing procedural amendments.
|
