Import manifest amendment refused where fraudulent intent was found and only the carrier could seek correction.

Amendment of an import general manifest airway bill was not permissible where the proper officer was not satisfied that the record was merely incorrect or incomplete and the surrounding facts indicated fraudulent intention. The request failed because the carrier refused to support or seek the correction, the shipper had already taken delivery order, and the explanation of mis-sent cargo lacked credible evidence. The applicant also lacked competence to seek the amendment, as the carrier or person-in-charge was the proper party under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection of the amendment claim was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to amendment of the import general manifest airway bill in its favour and whether such amendment could be allowed when the carrier refused to seek correction and the authorities found fraudulent intention.

Analysis: The claim for amendment was examined in the context of Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, which permits amendment only when the proper officer is satisfied that the import manifest or import report is incorrect or incomplete and that there was no fraudulent intention. The record showed that the carrier stood by the original airway bill, declined to support the requested change, and stated that the shipper had already taken delivery order and had not sought amendment. The applicant approached only after seizure, and the authorities found that the explanation of mis-sent cargo was unsupported by credible material. The request was also held to be outside the applicant's competence, since the carrier or person-in-charge was the proper party to seek such amendment.

Conclusion: The request for amendment was not allowable and the rejection of the claim was upheld.

---