2024 (2) TMI 28 - AT - Customs

Rejection of the request for amendment of the shipping bills on the ground of limitation - HELD THAT - As the request for amendment is made after three Months time as prescribed in Board Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010, the request cannot be granted. The very same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case M/S. AUTOTECH INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CHENNAI IV COMMISSIONERATE 2021 (11) TMI 518 - CESTAT CHENNAI . The Board Circular was also considered by the Tribunal to hold that during the relevant period, there is no specific time limit prescribed in Section 149 to request for amendment of shipping bill. The Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of COLOSSUSTEX PRIVATE LIMITED AND TODI RAYONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOM, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM, MAHARASHTRA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM NS-II, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NS-II, RAIGAD, 2023 (9) TMI 313 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT had occasion to consider the Board Circular prescribing a period of three Months to request for amendment of shipping bill. The Hon ble Court held that as Section 149 prior to its amendment, does not prescribe any time limit, the Board vide Circular cannot impose a time limit so as to decline the request for amendment of shipping bill. The rejection of request for amendment of shipping bill is not justified. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of the request for amendment of shipping bills on the ground of limitation.

Issue 1: Request for Amendment of Shipping Bills

The Appellant filed shipping bills for export of goods under EPCG + Drawback + ROSCTL (Scheme Code-61) but mistakenly mentioned the Code as 43. The request for amendment from Code 43 to 61 was made after three months. The Original Authority rejected the request citing a Board Circular imposing a three-month time limit for such requests. The Appellant argued that Section 149 of the Customs Act did not prescribe any time limit for such amendments during the relevant period. The Tribunal considered previous decisions and held that there was no specific time limit in Section 149 for such requests. Referring to the case of M/s. Autotech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that a reasonable time should be allowed for such requests, and the Board Circular cannot impose a time limit. The Tribunal set aside the rejection of the request for amendment, allowing the appeal.

Decision:
The rejection of the request for amendment of shipping bills on the ground of limitation was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.