2019 (12) TMI 244 - AT - Customs

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 ... Amendment in the shipping bills - request of the appellant for ‘No Objection Certificate’ for claiming MEIS by amendment of reward option from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’ in the shipping bills is denied - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner has failed to notice that the appellant has declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits in all the shipping bills which have been produced on record. The only lapse on the part of the appellant was that they have mentioned in the reward column as 'N' instead of 'Y', which is only a procedural defect. Further, it is found that otherwise the appellant is entitled to claim MEIS benefit as per the export policy. Failure to mention 'Y' in the reward column of the shipping bill for availing the benefit under MEIS scheme can be corrected by amending the shipping bill as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pasha International vs. Commissioner of Customs [ 2019 (2) TMI 1187 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ]. The rejection of request for amendment of shipping bill by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law and therefore the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the Custom Authorities to allow the amendment in the shipping bill as per the request of the appellant on production of certified copy of this order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of 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.