9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to a lower amount of duty foregone. This is not a valid ground to deny an importer a facility provided in the Act. – Held that the assessing authority is directed to allow the appellants amend the Bills of Entry subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. The appeals are allowed. - C/511-512/2006 - 82-83/2009 - Dated:- 16-1-2009 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - These are appeals filed by M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., Chennai and M/s. Shree Ambika Sugars Ltd., Chennai, against a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy dated 26-06-06. The appellants had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Nath Diesels Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 130 (Tri.), the Tribunal had held that the description in the Bill of Entry could not be amended after the goods were cleared as the description could not be verified. The assessment of the Bills of Entry made by the proper officer had not been challenged. Therefore, the original assessment of the Bills of Entry had become final. In the case of M/s. J.M. Industries v. Commissioner - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 977 (Tri.), it was held that assessment of Bills of Entry was an appealable order and appeal could be filed against assessment of Bills of Entry. In C.C. v. M/s. Arvind Export - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 54 (Tri.-LB), it was held that an order under Section 47 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal in support of the prayer in the appeals. (i) Brakes India Ltd. v. C.C., Chennai - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 300 (Tri.-Chen.) In this case, the appellants had sought amendment of several Bills of Entry enabling them to pay the CVD in cash. The liability to CVD had been met by debiting credit in the DEPB book at the time of clearance of the goods involved. The amendment sought was revenue neutral. Rejecting the argument of the revenue that the assessment of the Bills of Entry involved in the appeals had become final and that the same could be modified only by recourse to appeal proceedings or review under Section 28 of the Act as held by the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E., Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., - 2000 (120) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently, in terms of Section 149, the subject Bills of Entry were open to be amended. It appears from the provisions of Section 149 that such amendment shall be made by the importer as 8 authorized by the proper officer. Thus the importer is expected to apply to the proper officer for permission to amend the Bills of Entry. Such amendment of the Hills of Entry should precede reassessment under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, it would appear that the initiative for reassessment should come from the assessee. I am of the considered view that it is still open to the assessee to take this initiative, there being no period of limitation prescribed for reassessment under the Act." 3. The Ld. JDR defends the impugned order. He relies on the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot authorize reassessment of Bill of Entry. It is only conferring discretion on the proper officer of Customs to permit the importer to amend his bill of Entry subsequent to clearance of the goods on the basis of anterior evidence. In the present case, the reduced prices were not in existence at the time of clearance of the goods and therefore the proper officer of Customs was barred, under the proviso to Section 149, from allowing the importer to amend the declared value of the goods in the Bill of Entry. The appellants did not apply for such amendment either. Hence Section 149 was not applicable to the facts of the case." 4. I have carefully considered the case records and the submissions made by both sides. The appellants seek a dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment of CVD on the imported goods under the Central Excise Tariff with CSH 1701.39. The appellants claimed that the amendment to the Bills of Entry could be allowed with reference to the Central Excise Tariff and the documents that were in existence at the time of assessment of the impugned Bills of Entry. I find that the original authority declined the permission sought to make the amendment solely on the ground that the same would entail re-quantification of the duty leading to a lower amount of duty foregone. This is not a valid ground to deny an importer a facility provided in the Act. In rejecting the appeals, the Commissioner (A) found that the amendment sought involved revision of classification and assessment. As per the scheme o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
