2014 (11) TMI 416 - HC - Customs

Importer cannot correct classification errors in bill of entry under Customs Act; advised to appeal.

M/s. Neoteric Informatique Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs

The court ruled that the petitioner, an importer of electronic equipment, could not invoke Section 154 of the Customs Act to rectify a classification ... Rectification of mistake - error of classification of goods - Held that:- Admittedly, the Bill of Entry was filed by the petitioner and therefore, it is their document and if any error was committed by the petitioner, then the petitioner cannot approach the authority to invoke Section 154 of the Act effecting correction of their bill of entry. If according to the petitioner, the correct classification was accepted by the department in the subsequent import, then it is a good ground for the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. In fact, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, in their communication, advised the petitioner to approach the appellate authority - Decided against Assessee. Issues:1. Correct classification of goods in the bill of entry.2. Applicability of Section 154 of the Customs Act for rectifying errors in classification.3. Petitioner's right to approach the authority for correction.Analysis:The petitioner, a regular importer of electronic equipment, sought a writ of mandamus to rectify the classification error of goods in the bill of entry from Customs Tariff Heading 85286900 to 85286100. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs had declined the request, citing that Section 154 of the Customs Act only allows correction of clerical or arithmetical errors by the authorities, not errors made by the importer. The court noted that Section 154 empowers the Central Government, the Board, or customs officers to correct such mistakes in decisions or orders. Since the bill of entry was filed by the petitioner, any errors made therein are the petitioner's responsibility, and they cannot invoke Section 154 to rectify their own mistakes. The petitioner was advised to appeal for a remedy, which the court deemed appropriate in this case.The court emphasized that the language of Section 154 is explicit in allowing corrections for clerical or arithmetical errors made by the authorities, not errors made by importers. Therefore, the petitioner's request for rectification under this section was deemed invalid. The court highlighted that if the correct classification was accepted in subsequent imports, it would be a valid ground for the petitioner to appeal to the appellate authority. Consequently, the court rejected the prayer sought by the petitioner in the writ petition, dismissing the petition. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority within 30 days from the date of the order, with instructions for the appellate authority to consider the appeal without limitation constraints and adjudicate it on its merits and in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded in this case.