2026 (2) TMI 51 - HC - Customs

Rectification of customs bill of entry unit price errors remitted for reconsideration and hearing; communication set aside.

Rectification of incorrect unit prices in bills of entry arising from inadvertent typographical errors falls within the scope of customs rectification ... Rectification of mistakes in customs documents - recall and re-assessment of bill of entry - bona fide / inadvertent error - administrative discretion in amendment of customs records - reliance on precedent in departmental decisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - JNCH Standing Order No.27/2019 - HELD THAT:- It was the petitioner’s clear case in the letter dated 18 June 2020 (supra) that due to an inadvertent / human typographical error, incorrect unit price was mentioned in the purchase order and the supplier had also raised invoices with incorrect unit prices. Thus, it is submitted that under the provisions of Section 149 read with Section 154 of the Customs Act, rectification / correction of such bills of entry ought to have been considered as it was a bona fide mistake. We may observe that certain issues in regard to inadvertent / bona fide errors/mistakes having taken place, were placed on record of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs by the petitioners in their application. In our opinion, the case of the petitioners as set out in the application as also on the documents, which, according to the petitioner, existed at the relevant time ought to have been considered in the proper perspective. There was no reason as set out in the order passed by the said authority, considering the impugned communication (supra), as to why such case of the petitioners on the said documents needs to be rejected. In our opinion, it is in the interest of justice that the impugned communication be set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Gr. III/JNCH, who shall examine the petitioners’ case on cancellation of out of charges and recall of Bills of entry for amendment of unit price and on the issues as urged on behalf of the petitioners, and after considering all such documents and the petitioners’ pleas and after an opportunity of hearing being granted to the petitioners, a decision be taken as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from the date this order is presented before the said authority. Petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of our aforesaid observations. Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner erred in refusing the application for cancellation of out of charge and recall and re-assessment of the bill of entry to correct the unit price under Section 149 read with Section 154 of the Customs Act.Analysis: The petitioner's application asserted an inadvertent typographical error in the commercial documents and invoices producing an incorrect unit price, and sought correction and re-assessment. The departmental communication refused the request solely by reference to a Supreme Court decision and a standing order, without addressing the petitioner's documentary evidence and pleas. The matter therefore required examination of the petitioner's submitted documents, consideration of whether the error was bona fide, and an opportunity of hearing before a conclusive decision under the cited statutory provisions could be rendered.Conclusion: The impugned communication is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Group III/JNCH, to examine the petitioner's application for cancellation of out of charge and recall and re-assessment of the bill of entry, consider all relevant documents and pleas, grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass a reasoned decision expeditiously and within six weeks from presentation of this order.Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory application for rectification or re-assessment under Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act raises a bona fide clerical error supported by documents, the adjudicating authority must examine the materials, afford an opportunity of hearing and decide on the merits rather than rejecting the application solely by reference to precedent or administrative instruction.