Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of countervailing duty could be granted on the plea that no electric motors were imported, despite the appellants' own declaration in the bill of entry describing the goods as gear boxes complete with A.C. electric motors, and whether the bill of entry could be amended after the goods had gone out of customs charge.
Analysis: The declared description in the bill of entry specifically referred to gear boxes complete with A.C. electric motors, and this contemporaneous declaration negatived the later claim that no motors had been imported. The proper course, if the declaration was erroneous, was to seek correction while the goods were still available for customs verification. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 bars amendment of the bill of entry after the goods have gone out of customs charge.
Conclusion: The refund claim failed, and the appeal was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A party is bound by its declaration in the bill of entry, and amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not permissible after the goods have gone out of customs charge.