2025 (1) TMI 319 - HC - Customs

Customs duty overpayment allows Bill of Entry amendment under Section 149 within three months

M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory Vijeyakumar Raja Airtel Centre Versus The Union of India, The Authorized Officer, The Specified Officer, The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group 5A), The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, (Group 5A), The Specified Officer, The Commissioner of Customs - Import, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), The Deputy Commissioner of Customs – (Group 5A), Chennai

M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory Vijeyakumar Raja Airtel Centre Versus The Union of India, The Authorized Officer, The ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the petitioner is entitled to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the initial self-assessment and payment of customs duty.Whether the Public Notice No.88/2019 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, which rejected the petitioner's request for amendment, is valid and enforceable.What is the appropriate legal recourse for an importer seeking to amend a Bill of Entry under the Customs Act, 1962Rs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Entitlement to Amend the Bill of EntryRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner sought amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for amendments in the Bill of Entry if supported by documentary evidence existing at the time of import. The judgment also references the Supreme Court's decision in ITC Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, which discusses the appealability of self-assessment orders.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that amendments to the Bill of Entry are permissible under Section 149 if the petitioner can provide contemporaneous documents that were available at the time of import. The court emphasized the need for a speaking order to be passed when such amendments are considered.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner mistakenly paid 20% customs duty and sought to amend the Bill of Entry to correct this error. The court found that the petitioner should be allowed to present additional evidence, such as a Chartered Engineer Certificate, to support the amendment request.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied Section 149 and Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, to the facts, allowing for the correction of clerical errors and omissions in the Bill of Entry.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the self-assessment was final and could not be amended without an appeal. However, the court found that the amendment could be sought through other provisions of the Customs Act, not just through an appeal.Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 149, provided the necessary documentary evidence is submitted.Issue 2: Validity of Public Notice No.88/2019Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Public Notice was issued based on the Supreme Court's decision in ITC Limited, which the Department interpreted as limiting the amendment of self-assessed Bills of Entry.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the Public Notice was inconsistent with the broader provisions of the Customs Act, which allow for amendments through various means, not solely through an appeal.Key Evidence and Findings: The court examined the Public Notice and found it to be overly restrictive, not aligning with the legislative intent of the Customs Act.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles from the ITC Limited case, emphasizing that amendments could be made through Section 149 and Section 154, not just through appeals.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's reliance on the Public Notice was rejected as the court found it contrary to the statutory provisions allowing amendments.Conclusions: The Public Notice No.88/2019 was quashed as it was found to be inconsistent with the Customs Act's provisions.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'As long as the petitioner is able to satisfy the requirements for amendment of the document namely, the subject Bill of Entry with the documents, which were in existence at the time of import, the benefit of amendments cannot be denied.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that amendments to a Bill of Entry can be made under Section 149 and Section 154 of the Customs Act, provided there is supporting documentary evidence from the time of import.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned Public Notice and orders rejecting the amendment request, and directed the respondents to re-evaluate the amendment request under Section 149 within three months.The judgment underscores the flexibility within the Customs Act, 1962, for amending Bills of Entry, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and the need for administrative actions to align with statutory provisions. The court's decision provides clarity on the process and reinforces the rights of importers to seek amendments when errors are identified post-assessment.