Bill of Entry amendment after out of charge allowed where contemporaneous records proved invoice typo and excess duty payment.

Amendment of a Bill of Entry after out of charge was held permissible where documentary evidence showed a typographical error in the supplier's invoice value. The incorrect invoice figure had led to excess duty payment, but the purchase order, invoice, credit note and banking remittance records were already available and supported the correction. Refusal to permit amendment solely because the goods had been cleared was unjustified, as the proposed correction did not affect physical examination of the goods and was backed by contemporaneous evidence. Reassessment was therefore required to be allowed, and the rejection was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether amendment and reassessment of the Bill of Entry could be allowed after out of charge on the basis of documentary evidence showing a typographical error in the invoice value.

Analysis: The appellant established that the item price had been wrongly typed in the supplier's invoice as 4.04 CHF instead of 0.04 CHF, resulting in excess duty payment. The purchase order and invoice were already available when the Bill of Entry was filed, and the excess amount was later supported by a credit note and remittance through banking channels. On these facts, the refusal to permit amendment merely because the goods had been given out of charge was not justified, since the correction did not affect the physical examination of the goods and was supported by sufficient contemporaneous evidence.

Conclusion: Amendment of the Bill of Entry was required to be allowed, and the rejection of reassessment was unsustainable.

Concurring Opinion: The second member agreed with the allowance of the appeal and the conclusion on amendment after out of charge, but differed on the direction fixing a 30-day time limit for implementation, stating that such a direction was unnecessary.

---