2012 (5) TMI 302 - AT - Customs

Tribunal permits correction of clerical error in bill of entry under Customs Act

The Tribunal allowed the correction of a clerical error in a bill of entry under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the Revenue's objection ... Refund - exchange rate was wrongly mentioned in Euro instead of US $. In this manner they paid duty in excess and on realizing - lower adjudicating authority rejected their refund claim on the ground that they have not challenged the assessment order – Held that:- case is remanded to lower adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh by allowing the amendment under Section 154 and in case the refund is allowable, the same should subject to question of unjust enrichment, appeal is disposed of Issues Involved:Appeal against order allowing correction by CHA in bill of entry, rejection of refund claim for clerical error in mentioning exchange rate, interpretation of Section 154 for correction of clerical errors, challenge on whether refund claim can be filed without challenging assessment order.Analysis:The appeal before the Tribunal involved a dispute where the Revenue challenged an order-in-appeal allowing the correction carried out by the Customs House Agent (CHA) in the bill of entry. The respondent had filed a bill of entry with a clerical error, mentioning the exchange rate in Euro instead of US $. This error led to an excess duty payment, prompting the respondent to file a refund claim. The lower adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, citing failure to challenge the assessment order, relying on a Supreme Court decision. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the correction under Section 154, directing the respondent to approach the proper officer for correction.The Revenue contended that the issue before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not about amending in accordance with Section 154 but rather whether a refund claim can be filed without challenging the assessment order. They relied on a Tribunal decision to support their argument that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have addressed an issue not originally before him. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the clerical error was a valid reason for the refund claim, citing precedents and distinguishing the Revenue's cited case based on the nature of the issues involved.The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and perusing the records, found that the clerical error in mentioning the foreign currency could be corrected under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal clarified that clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes could be corrected without the need to challenge the assessment order, contrary to the Revenue's contention. Citing a relevant Tribunal decision, the Tribunal held that in cases of clerical errors, the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the Revenue did not apply.Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case to the lower adjudicating authority to decide afresh, allowing the amendment under Section 154. If the refund was found to be allowable, it should be subject to the question of unjust enrichment. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the correction of clerical errors under Section 154 without the necessity of challenging the assessment order.