2014 (8) TMI 993 - AT - Customs

Tribunal allows appeal over amendment refusal for Bills of Entry despite clerical errors.

PANASONIC ENERGY INDIA CO. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORTS), MUMBAI

The tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant concerning the refusal to amend Bills of Entry despite an earlier CESTAT order. The case involved ... Amendment to Bills of Entry – Correction of arithmetic/clerical mistake – Appellant imported Alkaline Battery cells and filed three Bill of Entry – Since certain arithmetic/clerical errors had crept, CVD was paid on basis of MRP wrongly assuming it to be “per piece” instead of per package – Appellant sought modification/rectification for such arithmetic/clerical mistake which had crept into Bills of entry – Despite clear findings by higher appellate authorities, adjudicating authority, refused to amend Bill of Entry – Held that:- It stands established that there were certain clerical/arithmetic errors in Bill of Entries – In identical circumstances, tribunal in case of De Nora India Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 384 - CESTAT, Mumbai] has allowed amendment to BE and even granted refund of excess duties involved – Impugned order did not properly examine aspect of rectification/modification in Bill of Entries, despite given past developments in present case – Therefore impugned order is unsustainable and accordingly same is quashed and set aside – Decided in favour of Appellant. Issues:1. Refusal to amend Bills of Entry despite earlier CESTAT order.2. Clerical errors in Bills of Entry and subsequent requests for modification.3. Challenge to Orders-in-Appeal and finality of decisions.4. Interpretation of legal position on amendment of Bills of Entry.5. Relevance of case laws and applicability to the present case.6. Dispute over refund eligibility.7. Examination of past developments and comparison with similar cases.Analysis:1. The appellant filed appeals against the Orders-in-Original dated 22-2-2012, where Bills of Entry were not amended despite an earlier CESTAT order dated 29-3-2010 remanding the matter for re-adjudication. The issue revolved around the refusal to make necessary amendments as directed by the higher appellate authorities.2. The case involved the import of Alkaline Battery cells with clerical errors in three Bill of Entry Nos. The appellant sought modification due to arithmetic mistakes, particularly in the calculation of Countervailing Duty (CVD) based on the wrongly assumed MRP. While two Bills of Entry were successfully amended earlier, one remained disputed, leading to the current appeal.3. The first Appellate Authority allowed the amendments to two Bills of Entry under Section 149, and the decisions attained finality as the Revenue did not appeal against them. However, a delay in filing an appeal for the third Bill of Entry led to a challenge by the revenue department, resulting in conflicting judgments.4. The legal position on amending Bills of Entry under Section 149 was crucial in this case. The appellant argued that the earlier CESTAT order and settled legal principles permitted such modifications, emphasizing the need to rectify clerical errors. The tribunal found merit in this argument and criticized the lower authorities for disregarding the established legal framework.5. The appellant highlighted the misinterpretation of case laws by the lower authorities, asserting that the precedents cited were not applicable to the present scenario. The tribunal agreed, distinguishing the facts of the current case from the cases referenced in the impugned orders, thereby reinforcing the necessity of adhering to relevant legal principles.6. The dispute over refund eligibility arose during the proceedings, with the Revenue contending that no refund was due. However, the focus of the case primarily centered on rectifying and modifying the Bills of Entry, as directed by the CESTAT order, rather than the grant of refunds, highlighting a divergence in the issues at hand.7. By examining past developments and comparing them with similar cases like De Nora India Ltd., where amendments and refunds were granted, the tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the order, allowing the appeals filed by the appellant with any consequential relief deemed necessary.This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues, arguments, and conclusions drawn in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.