2024 (2) TMI 28 - AT - Customs

CESTAT overturns shipping bill amendment rejection, rules Board Circular cannot impose time limits under Section 149

CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal against rejection of shipping bill amendment request. The lower authority had rejected the amendment application citing ... Amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act - validity of Board Circular No. 36/2010 prescribing a three month limitation for amendment - limitation/reasonable time for seeking amendment of export documents - retrospective application of amendment to Section 149 and temporal applicability of statutory time limitsAmendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act - validity of Board Circular No. 36/2010 prescribing a three month limitation for amendment - limitation/reasonable time for seeking amendment of export documents - Rejection of the appellant's request to amend shipping bills on the ground that it was filed beyond the three month period prescribed in Board Circular No.36/2010. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that, for the period in question, Section 149 did not prescribe a statutory time limit for seeking amendment of shipping bills, and therefore a Board Circular could not impose a substantive limitation which effectively negatived the statutory power to amend. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in M/s. Autotech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., which recognised that while amendments should be sought within a reasonable time, no specific statutory limitation existed then and excessive delays could be rejected on the basis of inordinate delay; and it also relied on the High Court of Bombay's reasoning in Colossustex Pvt. Ltd. that the Circular could not be elevated into binding regulations and could not validly curtail the exercise of powers under Section 149 as it stood prior to the later statutory amendment. The Tribunal further noted that the one year period introduced by Notification No.11/2022 Cus.(NT) with effect from 22.02.2022 was not applicable to shipping bills filed prior thereto. Applying these principles to the facts, the Tribunal concluded that the Original Authority's rejection solely on the basis of Board Circular No.36/2010 was not legally sustainable.Impugned order rejecting the amendment request on the ground of the three month Circular is set aside; the appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the rejection of the amendment request based solely on Board Circular No.36/2010 was unjustified where Section 149 then contained no statutory time limit; the Original Authority's order is set aside and consequential relief granted as per law. Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of the request for amendment of shipping bills on the ground of limitation.Issue 1: Request for Amendment of Shipping BillsThe Appellant filed shipping bills for export of goods under EPCG + Drawback + ROSCTL (Scheme Code-61) but mistakenly mentioned the Code as 43. The request for amendment from Code 43 to 61 was made after three months. The Original Authority rejected the request citing a Board Circular imposing a three-month time limit for such requests. The Appellant argued that Section 149 of the Customs Act did not prescribe any time limit for such amendments during the relevant period. The Tribunal considered previous decisions and held that there was no specific time limit in Section 149 for such requests. Referring to the case of M/s. Autotech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that a reasonable time should be allowed for such requests, and the Board Circular cannot impose a time limit. The Tribunal set aside the rejection of the request for amendment, allowing the appeal.Decision:The rejection of the request for amendment of shipping bills on the ground of limitation was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.