2024 (2) TMI 1032 - HC - Customs

Applications for amendment of bills of entry rejected - exemption from basic customs duty under the Australia India Economic Co-operation and Trade Agreement - manufacturer of basic iron and steel and had imported 'steam coal' in bulk - Customs duty paid on imports - Scope of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 196 2 - HELD THAT - As regards the implications of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT this Court examined the same in earlier orders and concluded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not intend to restrict the remedies of the assessee to the filing of an appeal. On examining the impugned order, I find that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs has rejected the claim on the basis that the importer should establish that the goods originated from Australia and by placing reliance on public notice. The said public notice was quashed by the earlier order of this Court. As regards the requirement that the importer should establish that the goods originated from Australia, as discussed earlier, this aspect should be determined by examining the certificate of origin and any other relevant documents. Since the impugned orders were issued without examining such documents, they call for interference. Therefore, the impugned orders are quashed and the matters are remanded for reconsideration. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with Section 149 and other applicable provisions of the Customs Act and issue fresh orders after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. This exercise shall be concluded within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. These writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The rejection of applications for amendment of bills of entry under orders dated 09.11.2023.

Summary:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of basic iron and steel, imported 'steam coal' under bills of entry for home consumption, seeking exemption from basic customs duty under the Australia India Economic Co-operation and Trade Agreement. The petitioner's amendment applications were rejected, leading to the filing of writ petitions challenging the orders.

The petitioner's counsel argued that a public notice cancellation and a previous court judgment supported the petitioner's claims for amendment, citing the misinterpretation of a Supreme Court judgment. The senior standing counsel for the respondents contended that amendments under Section 149 of the Customs Act are limited to rectifying errors in import documents, not substantial alterations to assessments.

The court examined Section 149 of the Customs Act, highlighting that amendments can be made post-clearance based on existing documentary evidence. The court emphasized that the determination of goods' origin should be done by the customs officer, not the court. Regarding the Supreme Court judgment's implications, the court clarified that it did not restrict the assessee's remedies to only filing an appeal.

Upon reviewing the impugned orders, the court found deficiencies in the rejection rationale, directing a reconsideration based on the certificate of origin and relevant documents. The court quashed the orders and remanded the matters for proper examination and fresh orders within two months, emphasizing compliance with Section 149 and other Customs Act provisions.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.