Tribunal Orders Reconsideration for Shipping Bill Amendment in Brand Rate Drawback Case, Citing Evidence Oversight.

The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and remanded the case for reconsideration. The appellant, M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, sought an amendment to the Shipping Bill to correct a code for claiming a brand rate of drawback. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to properly assess the documentary evidence available at the time of export. The case was returned to the original authority for a fresh adjudication, requiring a thorough examination of the evidence and a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing. The decision was pronounced on 29.05.2023.

---

---

Issues involved:
The case involves the amendment of a Shipping Bill for claiming brand rate of drawback under DEEC scheme, denial of amendment request by lower authorities, and the appellant's contention regarding the existence of documentary evidence prior to export.

Amendment of Shipping Bill:
The appellant, M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, sought an amendment in the Shipping Bill to correct the code for brand rate fixation from '9801' to '980788411B'. The request was based on the intention to claim brand rate of drawback in accordance with Circular No. 29/2015-Customs. However, the request was rejected by the adjudicating authority citing lack of evidence to prove the genuineness of the error. The appellant contended that the amendment was justified as the evidence existed prior to export, and no fresh documentation was done post-export. The appellant also argued that the Drawback Rules do not restrict such amendments and that errors can be corrected under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Appellant's Contentions:
The appellant presented various facts to support their claim for amendment, including details of the export goods covered under Advance Authorization License and Drawback under Brand Rate Scheme. They highlighted the issuance of relevant licenses, invoices mentioning HSN Classification, and applications filed for Brand Rate Fixation of Drawback within the stipulated timeframe. The appellant emphasized that the Brand Rate Fixation claim existed at the time of export, justifying the request for amendment under Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Legal Provisions:
The Tribunal examined Section 149 of the Customs Act, which allows for the amendment of documents presented in the Customs House, subject to certain conditions. The provision specifies that amendments to a shipping bill after export are allowed based on documentary evidence existing at the time of clearance. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities denied the amendment solely due to the lack of submitted documentary evidence at the time of export, disregarding the documents referenced by the appellant in the appeal.

Remand for Reconsideration:
Considering the statutory provisions and the appellant's contentions, the Tribunal opined that the lower authority should reassess the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant for the proper evaluation of the amendment request. Additionally, Section 154 of the Customs Act allows for the correction of clerical errors, which the authorities failed to address in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the documentary evidence and granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the original authority to conduct a de novo adjudication based on the observations made. The appellant was instructed to submit documentary evidence, and a reasoned order was to be passed considering the evidences available in the case file. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2023.

---