2020 (3) TMI 268 - AT - Customs

Appeal granted in shipping bill amendment dispute, court emphasizes intention for scheme benefits

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Versus C.C. -Kandla

The appeal involved a dispute over the denial of an amendment in shipping bills by M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The appellant sought to change the ... Amendment in shipping bills - amendment sought in the said shipping bills by changing the mark from N to Y in these shipping bills which would entitle them to claim the benefit under the scheme - sole reason for denial of the amendment is that under section 149 of the Customs Act, amendment can only be allowed if it is based on documentary evidence which was in existence at the time when the goods were exported - HELD THAT:- The amendment claimed by the appellant is not in the nature of change in the shipping bills which may require evidence to prove. They are not intending to change description of goods or quantity of goods which would require any documentary evidence. The only thing they are requiring to amend their shipping bill is their intention of avail the benefit of a particular scheme. In these circumstances, the benefit of section 149 of the Customs Act cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Amendment in shipping bills under Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) denied based on marking error by CHA - Interpretation of section 149 of the Customs Act regarding amendment based on documentary evidence - Applicability of public notices regarding marking confusion on shipping bills.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute over the denial of an amendment in the shipping bills by M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The appellant was exporting Benzene under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) and sought to change the marking from 'N' to 'Y' in the 'Reward' column of the shipping bills to claim benefits under the scheme. The denial was based on the interpretation of section 149 of the Customs Act, which allows amendments only if supported by documentary evidence existing at the time of export.The appellant's counsel argued that the marking error was inadvertent and that they always intended to claim benefits under the scheme, emphasizing that there might not be documentary evidence to support such intentions due to initial confusion regarding the marking requirements. The counsel referred to public notices, including one relaxing the marking rules during a specific period, to support their case. They also cited decisions from the Madras High Court and the High Court of Kerala in similar cases to strengthen their argument.In the judgment, the Hon'ble Member (Technical) considered the submissions from both sides and relied on the decision of the High Court of Kerala in a similar case involving Saint Gobain India. The judgment highlighted that the amendment sought by the appellant was not related to changing goods' description or quantity but merely reflected their intention to avail benefits under a specific scheme. As such, the requirement of documentary evidence under section 149 of the Customs Act was deemed unnecessary in this context. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, emphasizing that the denial of the amendment based on documentary evidence was not justified in this case.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of section 149 of the Customs Act in the context of amendments to shipping bills, emphasizing the importance of considering the nature of the requested amendment. It also underscored the significance of intentions and schemes' benefits in such cases, especially when documentary evidence might not be readily available due to initial confusion or marking errors.