CESTAT allows appeal for rectification of mis-declared value in bill of entry under Section 154

The CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal by remand regarding rectification of value mis-declared in bill of entry under Section 154 Customs Act, 1962. Despite considerable delay in seeking amendment, the tribunal noted goods were cleared provisionally and records remained available for verification. The amendment request was connected to ongoing DRI investigation, and the Department should have awaited investigation outcome before rejection. The matter was remanded to Adjudication Authority to consider DRI investigation results and finalize provisional assessment within three months, with appropriate hearing opportunity for appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in value declared at the time of filing bill of entry.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns rectification of a mistake in the value declared at the time of filing the bill of entry for imported Telecom equipment. The appellant, a network service provider, imported goods with a unit price of 6299 USD but the overseas supplier erroneously mentioned the total price as 629900 USD. Due to a case by DRI, the goods were provisionally assessed and cleared on payment of Customs duty based on the incorrect invoice value. The appellant sought amendment of the bill of entry after realizing the mistake, but the request was rejected by the Adjudication Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) citing ongoing investigation and premature claim. The appellant argued for rectification under Section 154 of the Customs Act, relying on relevant case laws.

The appellant emphasized the need for rectification under Section 154 of the Customs Act, supported by the decision in the matter of M/s. Volvo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, where the Tribunal allowed correction of errors in assessment. The appellant also referred to the decision affirmed by the High Court of Madras in a related case. However, the Revenue's Authorized Representative relied on a Delhi High Court decision regarding negligence leading to excess duty payment and a Tribunal decision emphasizing timely application for amendments under Section 149.

The Tribunal considered the arguments and precedents cited by both parties. It noted that the case laws referred to pertained to finalization of assessments, while the appellant's situation involved provisional clearance pending investigation by DRI on the valuation issue. Despite the delay in seeking amendment, the Tribunal found that the amendment request was directly linked to the DRI investigation's outcome. Therefore, it set aside the previous orders and remanded the matter to the Adjudication Authority to consider the DRI investigation's findings and finalize the provisional assessment within three months based on the corrected value, providing an opportunity for the appellant to be heard.

---