Section 149 Customs Act allows shipping bill amendments for document rectification without considering consequential drawback benefits

CESTAT Mumbai held that section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 allows amendment of shipping bills for rectification of documents without considering consequential benefits. The tribunal found that customs authorities erred by refusing conversion of scheme codes in shipping bills based on potential drawback implications. The provision empowers amendment subject only to verifiability of facts at import/export date. The impugned circular wrongly conflated amendment jurisdiction with benefit assessment powers. Order set aside, directing authorities to decide amendment requests without considering flowing benefits, restricting determination to statutory framework of section 149.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of application for amendment of shipping bills.
2. Authority and applicability of circular no. 36/2010-Cus.
3. Scope and interpretation of section 149 of Customs Act, 1962.
4. Legal precedents and judicial pronouncements on the issue.

Summary:

The limited issue in this appeal of M/s Pinnacle Life Science Pvt Ltd is the denial of their application for amendment of shipping bills filed for export of goods undertaken by them ostensibly in pursuance of obligation arising from utilization of three 'advance authorisation' for procurement of 'ciprofloxacin API' as 'inputs' against 'invalidation letters' within the framework of the eponymous scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP).

1. Denial of Application for Amendment of Shipping Bills: The appellant claimed that they inadvertently omitted to include details of the 'advance authorisations' in the shipping bills and related invoices, instead declaring them under 'scheme code 19' for drawback entitlement against the eligible 'scheme code 03'. The request u/s 149 of Customs Act, 1962 was rejected based on the framework of circular no. 36/2010-Cus dated 23rd September 2010.

2. Authority and Applicability of Circular No. 36/2010-Cus: The circular restricts conversion of shipping bills to certain classes and imposes conditions such as the request being made within three months from the date of Let Export Order (LEO). The Learned Authorised Representative contended that the appeal lacks merit due to the less rigorous scheme of examination for drawback claims. However, the appellant argued that the circular lacks authority as the empowerment to prescribe restrictions and conditions was incorporated in section 149 only by Finance Act, 2019.

3. Scope and Interpretation of Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962: The section is intended for rectification of documents issued by parties to a commercial engagement, subject only to verifiability of facts as available on the date of import or export. The impugned circular was criticized for predisposing all amendment requests in terms of consequences, contrary to the legislated empowerment. The Tribunal emphasized that amendments should be allowed based on documentary evidence existing at the time of export, without undue influence from the consequences of such amendments.

4. Legal Precedents and Judicial Pronouncements: The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Colossustex Private Ltd striking down the restrictions in the circular for lack of statutory authority was highlighted. The Tribunal also referred to its own decision in Seco Tools India Pvt Ltd, which elaborated that the proper officer may authorize amendments based on existing documentary evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was in error and directed the competent authority to dispose off the request without considering the benefits that may flow thereby, strictly adhering to the judicial determination set out in several decisions.

(Order pronounced in open court on 07.05.2024)

---