2024 (1) TMI 198 - AT - Customs

Refund of Excess duty paid - refund arising as a consequence of re-assessment of bill of entry - amendment in the quantity of DAP imported in the Bill of Entry - HELD THAT - Section 149 of the Customs Act permits amendment to the document filed before the proper officer however it is subject to the condition that no amendment of bill of entry or shipping bill or bill of export, ship authorization to be amended after the import of goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in warehouse or the export goods have been exported, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, deposited or exported as the case may be. In the instant case, the document was cleared for home consumption on 11.06.2018. The goods were infact unloaded from the ship by the stevedoring agent, therefore, it is clear that no document was available prior to 11.06.2018. It can be seen that the clearance of goods can only be said to have happened on 21.06.2018 when the bills of entry was finally assessed. From that perspective the documents presented by the appellant namely the police report dated 15.06.2018 was indeed available prior to the clearance of the goods and was infact submitted prior to clearance of the goods i.e. on 19.06.2018. In these facts and circumstances, the amendment to the bill of entry should have been allowed in terms of section 149. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to re-assessment of the bill of entry and the refund arising from the re-assessment.

Re-assessment of Bill of Entry:
The case involved M/s. Indian Farmers Fertiliser Co-operative Ltd. (IFFCO) importing Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP), where 1800MT of DAP capsized during transfer. The dispute revolved around the amendment in the quantity of DAP imported in the Bill of Entry and the consequent refund claim for excess duty paid on the capsized quantity. The department contended that the refund claim was time-barred and denied the amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act after the goods were cleared for home consumption. However, the appellant argued that the conditions under Section 149 were satisfied, pointing out the existence of documentary evidence at the time of clearance and timely intimation to the customs department about the loss.

Refund Claim and Re-assessment:
The appellant sought reassessment of the bill of entry under Section 149, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the grounds that no documentary evidence existed at the time of clearance for home consumption. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that the goods were cleared on 11.06.2018 while the destruction and police report were dated after clearance. The appellant relied on the Zuari Agro Chemical Ltd. case, highlighting the distinction between "removal" and "clearance" for home consumption, arguing that the final assessment on 21.06.2018 marked the actual clearance. The Tribunal approved this argument, stating that the police report submitted before clearance should have allowed the amendment under Section 149.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the amendment to the bill of entry should have been permitted under Section 149 of the Customs Act. The appellant was entitled to consequential relief, and the judgment was pronounced in the open court on 04.01.2024.