Exporter's Appeal Granted to Amend Shipping Bills for MEIS Benefits: Procedural Error Corrected

The Tribunal allowed the exporter's appeal against the rejection of their request to amend the reward option in shipping bills from 'No' to 'Yes' for claiming MEIS benefits. The Tribunal considered the error as a procedural defect that could be corrected through an amendment, noting the appellant's declaration of intent in all shipping bills. Relying on precedent judgments, the Tribunal held that the rejection by the Commissioner was not legally sustainable and directed Customs Authorities to permit the requested amendment upon submission of the Tribunal's order. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
- Rejection of request for 'No Objection Certificate' for claiming MEIS by amendment of reward option from 'No' to 'Yes' in shipping bills.

Analysis:
The appellant, an exporter, filed an appeal against the rejection of their request for amending the reward option in the shipping bills from 'No' to 'Yes' by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellant had been exporting goods for 35 years and had inadvertently marked the reward column as 'N' instead of 'Y' in the shipping bills. The Commissioner rejected the request citing non-declaration of intent as a vital factor affecting the examination norms and procedures. The appellant argued that they had declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits on the shipping bills and that the error was merely procedural. The appellant relied on previous judgments, including one from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, to support their case. The learned counsel contended that the Commissioner's decision was not sustainable in law. The learned AR defended the impugned order during the proceedings.

Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits in all shipping bills. The Tribunal considered the error in marking 'N' instead of 'Y' as a procedural defect that could be corrected through an amendment. Citing the judgments from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to amend the shipping bills to reflect the correct reward option. The Tribunal noted that similar amendments had been allowed at other ports and referred to its previous decisions and a judgment from the Kerala High Court supporting the appellant's case. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the request for amendment by the Commissioner was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Customs Authorities to allow the requested amendment in the shipping bills upon the appellant's submission of a certified copy of the Tribunal's order. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

---