TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Shipping Bills could be amended under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 to reflect claim of MEIS benefit after export; (ii) Whether the absence of a declaration of MEIS intention in the Shipping Bills and the alleged delay in seeking amendment justified rejection of the request.
Issue (i): Whether Shipping Bills could be amended under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 to reflect claim of MEIS benefit after export.
Analysis: Section 149 permits amendment of documents on the basis of documentary evidence that existed at the time the goods were exported. The claim for MEIS was supported by export-related records and the Regional Authority had already issued scrips after verification of export and realization of proceeds. The record also showed that, during the relevant period, there was no requirement for physical examination of cargo exported from a SEZ unit under MEIS, and that requirement was introduced only later. In these circumstances, the amendment was held to be permissible.
Conclusion: The amendment of the Shipping Bills to enable declaration of MEIS benefit was allowed.
Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a declaration of MEIS intention in the Shipping Bills and the alleged delay in seeking amendment justified rejection of the request.
Analysis: The rejection based on delay and the absence of contemporaneous declaration was not accepted as decisive, because the statute does not prescribe a time bar for amendment and the relevant documentary basis for the claim existed. The SEZ setting, the control of customs and the Development Commissioner over operations, and the absence of any contemporaneous examination requirement during the export period supported the appellant's case. The denial was also found inconsistent with the judicial authorities relied upon and the comparable NOC placed on record.
Conclusion: The grounds of delay and non-declaration did not justify refusing amendment.
Final Conclusion: The refusal to amend the Shipping Bills was set aside and the respondent was directed to carry out the amendment, resulting in relief to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Amendment of export documents under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be denied merely for want of an earlier claim declaration or on the basis of a circular-imposed restriction when the requisite documentary evidence existed at the time of export and the statutory conditions for amendment are otherwise satisfied.
TaxTMI 
