2026 (3) TMI 1544 - AT - Customs

Post-export shipping bill amendment allowed where documentary evidence established RoSCTL entitlement and procedural scheme-code error caused no prejudice.

Post-export amendment of shipping bills was held permissible under Section 149 of the Customs Act where the exporter sought correction of an inadvertent ... Seeking request to amend the shipping bills by converting the scheme code from Drawback to Drawback - RoSCTL under Section 149 - Conversion of export promotion scheme - time-limit-based restriction - Whether, the request made by the exporter for amendment in the Shipping Bills for conversion of export promotion scheme i.e., from the ‘Drawback’ scheme having Scheme code No. “19” to other scheme of ‘Drawback & RoSCTL’ having Scheme code No. “60”, is permissible under the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Amendment of shipping bills - Conversion of export promotion scheme - RoSCTL benefits - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal held that for the shipping bills in question, the restrictions and time limits introduced later through the 2022 Regulations were inapplicable, since the let export orders had been granted prior to those Regulations coming into force. It found that the rejection based on a supposed shift from a less rigorous to a more rigorous examination scheme was unsupported, as the record itself showed examination instructions had been issued by Customs and no material was produced to establish any different examination norm for the claimed conversion during the relevant period. The Commissioner had also recorded that the exported goods were covered under Chapter 63 and eligible for RoSCTL, that there was no adverse comment in the examination reports, and that nothing adverse existed against the shipping bills. In that background, the mere incorrect mention of the scheme code in the shipping bills was treated as an inadvertent procedural error, especially in view of the transition from RoSL to RoSCTL and the scheme-code changes in the electronic system. The Tribunal further held that the apprehension regarding possible availment of MEIS benefit was contrary to the governing circulars and the DGFT procedure, which itself contained checks for transmission of data and adjustment of benefits. Relying on Man Industries (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (EP) [2006 (3) TMI 513 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] and following Lovy International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export) ICD, Tughlakabad [2024 (2) TMI 1267 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] it held that the statutory power to amend documents under Section 149 cannot be curtailed by circulars and that a substantive export incentive otherwise admissible cannot be denied for such procedural lapse. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 10] The impugned order rejecting conversion of the shipping bills was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the exporter was entitled to seek amendment of the shipping bills for conversion from drawback code '19' to drawback and RoSCTL code '60', and that the rejection on the grounds stated in the impugned order was legally unsustainable. The impugned order was accordingly set aside and the appeal was allowed. Issues: Whether the exporter's request to amend the shipping bills by converting the scheme code from Drawback to Drawback and RoSCTL was permissible under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis: The request concerned correction of an inadvertent scheme-code entry in shipping bills already supported by export documents. The time-limit-based restriction introduced later by the Shipping Bill (Post Export Conversion in Relation to Instrument Based Scheme) Regulations, 2022 was held inapplicable because the relevant exports and LEOs predated those regulations. The earlier circular framework governing conversion of shipping bills could not defeat the statutory power under Section 149, particularly where the goods exported were undisputedly covered by the RoSCTL scheme, no adverse material was shown against the shipping bills, and the record did not support the view that the conversion would change the matter into a more rigorous examination category. The entitlement to the substantive export benefit could not be denied merely because of a procedural mistake in the declared scheme code.Conclusion: The conversion sought by the exporter was allowable and the rejection of amendment was unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of the request for conversion of the shipping bills was set aside, and the exporter was held entitled to seek amendment for claiming the appropriate export incentive under the RoSCTL scheme.Ratio Decidendi: A post-export amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 may not be denied on the basis of procedural error alone where the exporter's entitlement is otherwise established from pre-existing documentary evidence and the requested correction does not prejudice the substantive customs assessment.