Tribunal grants appeal to amend Shipping Bills for MEIS benefits, emphasizing procedural defect.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's rejection of amending the reward column in Shipping Bills for claiming MEIS benefits. The Tribunal deemed the failure to mark "Yes" instead of "No" as a procedural defect, noting the appellant's consistent MEIS benefit claims and compliance with entitlement criteria. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal directed Customs Authorities to permit the requested amendment, emphasizing the appellant's declared intention for claiming benefits despite the procedural error.

---

---

Issues:
Request for "No Objection Certificate" for amending reward option in Shipping Bills for claiming MEIS benefits.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Commissioner's rejection of the request for amending the reward column in Shipping Bills from "No" to "Yes" for claiming MEIS benefits. The appellant's CHA inadvertently missed changing the entry, leading to the rejection of the request. The Commissioner emphasized the importance of declaring intention for Customs examination norms and cited CBIC Circular No. 36/2010, stating that amending the Shipping Bills would allow cargo to escape examination, contrary to regulations.

The appellant argued that the rejection lacked legal sustainability as they had declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits on the Shipping Bills, except for a procedural error in one column. They highlighted their consistent MEIS benefit claims without misdeclaration. They cited the Madras High Court's decision allowing correction under Section 149 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal's previous ruling, and the Delhi High Court's judgment directing amendment despite no declaration. The appellant provided examples of other ports permitting similar amendments and referenced relevant case laws to support their position.

The AR defended the impugned order, but upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits in most cases. The failure to mark "Y" instead of "N" in the reward column was deemed a procedural defect, with the appellant otherwise meeting MEIS benefit entitlement criteria. The Tribunal referenced the Madras High Court and Delhi High Court decisions, along with previous Tribunal rulings and a Kerala High Court judgment, to support the allowance of amendments in similar situations. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's rejection lacked legal merit, set aside the orders, and directed Customs Authorities to permit the amendment in the Shipping Bills upon presentation of a certified copy of the Tribunal's order. The appeal was allowed.

---