TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Upholds Decision Against Reassessment and Refund of Excess Customs Duty Due to Lack of Evidence.</h1> <h3>M/s. IBM India (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore</h3> M/s. IBM India (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore - 2024 (387) E.L.T. 323 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues Involved:1. Clerical Error and Amendment of Bill of Entry under Section 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Reassessment of Goods and Refund of Excess Duty Paid.Summary:Issue 1: Clerical Error and Amendment of Bill of Entry under Section 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962The appellant, M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd., imported software and declared a higher value, resulting in excess customs duty payment. They sought to amend the Bill of Entry under Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, claiming a clerical error. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that Section 149 allows amendments based on existing documentary evidence at the time of import, and Section 154 deals with clerical mistakes. Since the error was not clerical and the revised documents were not available at the time of import, both sections were ruled out. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that amendments under Section 149 require documents in existence at the time of import, which was not the case here.Issue 2: Reassessment of Goods and Refund of Excess Duty PaidThe appellant argued that the correct price was quoted in their initial purchase order, but an incorrect higher value was declared in the Bill of Entry. They requested reassessment and refund based on revised purchase orders and invoices generated later. The Tribunal noted that the goods were not examined at the time of import, and the revised documents were not available then. Citing various judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that reassessment and amendments cannot be claimed routinely and must be based on documentary evidence existing at the time of import. The request for reassessment was rejected as the revised documents could not be verified, and there was no evidence linking them to the original transaction.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim for reassessment and refund based on revised documents generated post-import was not permissible under Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act. The appeal was rejected, upholding the Commissioner's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
