2018 (9) TMI 195 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, recognizing exporter status & granting export benefits.

Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Versus C.C. Ahmedabad

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the appellant was the actual exporter of the goods based on contractual agreements and ... Amendment in shipping bills - after export of goods - change in the name of exporter - The shipping bills issued made in the name of M/s Jyoti Structures Ltd (Exporter) and bill of lading in the name of appellant with remarks on behalf of M/s Jyoti Structures Ltd. Held that:- It is clear the appellant is the exporter of the goods, particularly to the extent of invoices issued by the appellant. No benefit can be claimed by M/s Jyoti Structures Ltd. after the amendment is not allowed. The export benefit which is legally available to the appellant cannot be denied. All the export benefits should be extended to the exporter of goods in the present case undisputedly to the appellant. Section 149 of CA, states that even after export of the goods, the amendment of the document could be made if the details are existing in the documents of exports - In the present case as per the contract, bill of lading, invoice detail mentioned in the shipping bill, NOC given by M/s Jyoti Structures Ltd. it is clear that the actual exporter is the appellant. Therefore on the basis of these existing documents, the amendment in the shipping bill is clearly governed by section 149 and there is no reason why amendment cannot be allowed as per section 149. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Whether the appellant is the actual exporter of the goods for the purpose of amending shipping billsRs.2. Interpretation of Section 149 for allowing amendments in shipping bills post-export.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the export of goods by the appellant through a merchant importer, M/s Jyoti Structures Ltd. The department contended that M/s Jyoti Structures Ltd. was the ultimate exporter based on ARE-1 and export documents. However, the appellant argued that they should be considered the exporter as per the contract and other supporting documents. The appellant supplied goods to the consignee, M/s TANESCO, and various documents indicated the appellant's role as the exporter. The Tribunal analyzed the contract, NOC from M/s Jyoti Structures Ltd., bill of lading, and other evidence to establish that the appellant was indeed the exporter. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's request to amend shipping bills to reflect their status as the exporter was justified.2. The Tribunal further delved into the interpretation of Section 149 concerning the amendment of documents post-export. It noted that the section allows for amendments if the details exist in the export documents. In this case, the contract terms, bill of lading, invoice details, and the NOC from M/s Jyoti Structures Ltd. clearly indicated the appellant as the actual exporter. The Tribunal emphasized that export benefits should rightfully accrue to the exporter, which in this case was the appellant. Referring to the provision for disclaimer certificates to prevent misuse of export incentives, the Tribunal found no reason to deny the amendment of shipping bills. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.This detailed analysis showcases how the Tribunal carefully examined the evidence and legal provisions to determine the appellant's status as the exporter and the applicability of Section 149 for allowing amendments in shipping bills post-export.