2024 (9) TMI 75 - HC - Customs

Amendment of Import General Manifest (IGM) due to change in consignee - complaince with the procedure prescribed in paragraph 3(c) and (e) of Customs Circular No. 14/2017-Customs dated 11th April 2017 - HELD THAT - A similar matter had come up before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in ETG AGRI INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2017 (10) TMI 1658 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that ' We direct the concerned Authority empowered to consider the application made by the petitioner for amendment in IGM to decide the application made by the petitioner for amendment or substitution to the IGM subject to condition of the petitioner executing indemnity bond in favour of the Authorities indemnifying them of the claims and protests raised by the private parties regarding subject goods'. Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Amendment of Import General Manifest (IGM) due to change in consignee.
2. Requirement of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the original consignee for amending IGM.
3. Compliance with Customs Circular No. 14/2017-Customs for amending IGM.
4. Necessity of NOC for negotiable/transferable Bill of Lading.
5. Requirement of an explanation letter from the first consignee with IEC copy.
6. Application of a previous judgment in a similar matter.
7. Disposal of the petition and directions given by the court.

Analysis:
1. The petition involves the amendment of the Import General Manifest (IGM) due to a change in consignee from Respondent No. 5 to the Petitioner, as the goods were sold to the Petitioner while in transit.

2. The issue of whether a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the original consignee, Respondent No. 5, is required for amending the IGM is raised. The Petitioner argues that since the Bill of Lading is negotiable/transferable, NOC is not necessary, supported by a circular and previous judgment.

3. Compliance with Customs Circular No. 14/2017-Customs is discussed, specifically regarding the documents required for amending the IGM, as per the procedure prescribed in the circular. The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to the circular's guidelines.

4. The necessity of NOC for a negotiable/transferable Bill of Lading is debated, with the court agreeing with the Petitioner that in this case, NOC from the original consignee is not required, as evidenced by the nature of the Bill of Lading.

5. The requirement of an explanation letter from the first consignee with IEC copy is examined, with the court concluding that in this scenario, such a letter is not necessary, further supporting the Petitioner's position.

6. The court refers to a previous judgment in a similar matter, highlighting the importance of considering applications for amendment of IGM without unnecessary requirements, in line with the Customs Act, 1962, and directing the concerned authority to decide the application promptly.

7. The petition is disposed of, with the court passing specific orders directing the concerned authority to consider the application for amendment in IGM, subject to conditions, including the execution of an indemnity bond by the Petitioner. The court ensures that remedies for all parties are kept open and instructs compliance with the court's order.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the court's decision and the reasoning behind it.

← Previous Next →