2013 (7) TMI 719 - CGOVT - Customs

Government Upholds Decisions on Amendment Request in Import General Manifest & Airway Bill

The Government upheld the lower authorities' decisions, rejecting the applicant's request for amendment in the IGM and AWB. The revision application was ... Amendment in name in Import General Manifest (IGM) - An unaccompanied baggage was booked – he did not come for delivery – summons were issued but no response was received and goods were seized under the provisions of the customs Act – petition was filed to allow amendment in impugned AWB in their name - Held that:- amendment in IGM was not permissible where fraudulent intention was involved - applicants have not come out with any reason or motive for the carrier to ‘lie’ against them. Instead, the logics advanced to reiterate that the AWB issued by M/s. Tri Royal Forwarding (S) Pte. Ltd.- applicants are not substantiated with any other corroborative evidence there were no labels at all on the packages booked and there was no receipt of packages by the Registered Air Cargo agents or by their co-loaders - the claim was not supported by their RCA – court relied upon J.B. Trading Corporation v. Union of India (1987 (6) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS) - evidence available as on records proved that the applicant did not make a genuine request for amendment in IGM as they had fraudulent intention on their part to claim the goods - they had no locus standi to file request for amendment in IGM as Section 30(3) of Customs Act authorises only carrier to apply for such amendment – decided against assessee. Issues Involved:1. Amendment of Airway Bill (AWB) and Import General Manifest (IGM)2. Ownership and mis-sent goods claim3. Compliance with Customs Act, 1962 and relevant circulars4. Investigation and verification of claims5. Fraudulent intention and procedural adherenceDetailed Analysis:1. Amendment of Airway Bill (AWB) and Import General Manifest (IGM):The applicant sought an amendment to the AWB No. 629-1142-5481 and the IGM, claiming the goods were mis-sent to Coimbatore instead of Chennai. The lower authorities, including the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner (Appeals), rejected this request. The Government upheld these decisions, noting that amendments to the IGM can only be requested by the person-in-charge of the carrier, as per Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the relevant IATA rules. The carrier, M/s. Silk Air, refused to amend the AWB, stating that the request was not supported by their Regulated Cargo Agent (RCA) and that the AWB filed was accurate and complete.2. Ownership and Mis-sent Goods Claim:The applicant claimed ownership of the goods, stating they were wrongly dispatched in the name of Shri Sooravali Raju. However, the Government noted that the shipper, Shri Sooravali Raju, did not make any request for amendment and had obtained the delivery order. The applicant's claim was found to be unsupported by any corroborative evidence, and the carrier's records did not indicate any mis-sent goods. The applicant's delayed claim (26 days after the goods were seized) raised doubts about the legitimacy of their ownership claim.3. Compliance with Customs Act, 1962 and Relevant Circulars:The Government referred to Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962, which outlines the procedure for filing and amending the IGM. The relevant circulars (No. 13/2005 and No. 44/2005) clarify that amendments should be allowed unless there is fraudulent intention. The Government found that the applicant's request for amendment was not genuine and was made with fraudulent intent. The carrier's refusal to amend the AWB and the lack of support from the RCA further validated this conclusion.4. Investigation and Verification of Claims:The applicant argued that no overseas verification was conducted. However, the Government noted that the partner of the applicant firm provided vague and evasive answers during the investigation, failing to justify the bona fides of their business transactions. The carrier, M/s. Silk Air, also did not find the request for amendment credible. The investigation conducted by DRI did not support the applicant's claim, and no further overseas inquiry was deemed necessary.5. Fraudulent Intention and Procedural Adherence:The Government observed that the applicant's claim was made with fraudulent intention, as evidenced by the timing of their claim and the lack of supporting evidence. The carrier's adherence to IATA rules and the refusal to amend the AWB based on the shipper's actions further supported this finding. The Government cited the Hon'ble Madras High Court's judgment in J.B. Trading Corporation v. Union of India, which emphasized that amendments in IGM are not permissible where fraudulent intention is involved.Conclusion:The Government upheld the lower authorities' decisions, rejecting the applicant's request for amendment in the IGM and AWB. The revision application was dismissed due to lack of merit, fraudulent intention, and procedural non-compliance. The Government emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and relevant circulars, ensuring that amendments are not made to circumvent legal proceedings or facilitate smuggling.