Tribunal allows appeal for amendment of Bill of Entry under Section 149

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the original authority to treat the reassessment request as an application under Section 149 for amendment of Bill of Entry. The decision emphasized the legality of seeking amendment for refund claims without time constraints, aligning with established judicial precedents.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim due to discrepancy in imported quantity and payment of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) based on Bill of Lading quantity instead of Invoice quantity.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Low Ash Metallurgical Coke (LAM Coke) from China with a quantity discrepancy between Bills of Lading and Invoices due to moisture content. Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) was imposed @ US $25.20 per MT. The appellant paid duty under protest, claiming an excess payment of &8377; 9,41,005/-. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner for not challenging the assessment order. The Commissioner upheld the rejection citing the ITC Limited vs. CCE, Kolkata judgment.

2. The appellant argued that post-amendment of Customs Act in 2011, self-assessment does not require challenging, contrary to the ITC Limited judgment. The appellant requested a reassessment order under Section 17(4) but was issued a show-cause notice instead. The Commissioner denied the right to seek amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, which was considered impermissible. Various judicial decisions supported the appellant's argument on seeking amendment and claiming refund without time limit.

3. The Tribunal found the duty was paid under protest, and the appellant sought reassessment, but the refund claim was rejected without allowing the amendment under Section 149. The Commissioner's denial of the amendment right was deemed unsustainable. The Bombay High Court's distinction of the ITC Limited judgment supported the appellant's position. The Tribunal directed the original authority to treat the reassessment request as an application under Section 149 for amendment of Bill of Entry, setting aside the impugned order.

4. The Tribunal's decision aligned with previous judgments and clarified the legality of seeking amendment under Section 149 for refund claims. The appeal was allowed, directing the original authority to consider the appellant's request for reassessment as an application under Section 149 for amendment of Bill of Entry and pass an appropriate order after a hearing.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and directing the original authority to treat the reassessment request as an application under Section 149 for amendment of Bill of Entry. The decision emphasized the legality of seeking amendment for refund claims without time constraints, aligning with established judicial precedents.

---