2026 (4) TMI 82 - AT - Customs

Shipping bill amendment for MEIS benefit may be allowed when contemporaneous export documents support an inadvertent clerical error.

Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits amendment of shipping bills where contemporaneous documentary evidence existing at the time of export ... Seeking amendment of Shipping Bills, under the provisions of Section 149 - correct the reward column from 'No' to 'Yes' for claiming MEIS benefit - Procedural lapse vis-a-vis substantive export incentive - limitation prescribed under the Notification No.21/2025-Cus CMT - Reasonable time under amendment power - Single Member jurisdiction - Whether the application filed by the Appellants for amendment of the shipping bill can be allowed. Single Member jurisdiction - Waiver of forum objection - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal found that the appeal had been pending since 2019, had earlier been heard and decided by a Single Member, and no objection to such hearing had been raised by the Revenue at any stage. The Revenue had also not taken this as a ground before the High Court in the earlier round. In those circumstances, no reason was found to re-post the matter before a Division Bench. [Paras 12] The appeals were held fit to be decided by the present Bench. Limitation prescribed under the Notification No.21/2025-Cus CMT - HELD THAT: - The limitation prescribed under the Notification No.21/2025-Cus CMT dated 03.04.2025, I find that even as per said Notification, the application for conversion shall be filed by an exporter in writing within one year from the date of clearance of goods under Section 1 of Section 51 Section 69 of the Act or from the date of entry made under Section 84 of the Act as the cases may be. Further jurisdictional Commissioner is empowered to extend for further period of six months and jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of the Customs is vested with the power to extend the time limit not exceeding further six months. Thus even if a request is made within two year and if the jurisdiction Commissioner or Chief Commissioner is satisfied with the reason given for the delay, they are empowered to amend such amendment even up to two year after the relevant date of export. In Appeal No. C/20532/2019, shipping bill dated 29.10.2015 to 31.03.2016 related to 123 exports are involved and the request for the amendment was made on 22.05.2017. Similarly in Appeal No. C/20930/2019, two shipping bills dated 28.07.2017 and one shipping bill dated 07.09.2017 are involved and request for amendment was made on 02.04.2019. Amendment of shipping bills - MEIS benefit - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the decision on delay under the amendment power depends on the facts of each case and that no rigid rule could be applied. It noted that even the departmental circular contemplated conversion or amendment on the basis of documentary evidence existing at the time of export, and there was no dispute that the exported goods were otherwise eligible for the scheme. In one appeal, the DGFT had already issued MEIS scrips after being satisfied about export and repatriation. Relying on M/s. Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt Ltd. [2025 (9) TMI 418 - SUPREME COURT], the Tribunal treated the wrong indication in the reward column as an inadvertent procedural defect which, once corrected under the statutory power of amendment, could not defeat substantive entitlement under a beneficial export incentive scheme. On that reasoning, the requests for amendment were allowed. [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16] The rejection of amendment was not sustained, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law. Final Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection as to forum and held that the exporters were entitled to amendment of the shipping bills for correction of the MEIS declaration. Treating the error as a curable procedural lapse and not a ground to deny substantive export incentive, the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. Issues: Whether amendment of the shipping bills to change the reward column from 'No' to 'Yes' for claiming MEIS benefit could be allowed on the basis of documentary evidence existing at the time of export.Analysis: Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits amendment of shipping bills on the strength of documentary evidence that existed when the goods were exported. The dispute concerned an inadvertent omission in the reward column, while the exports themselves were admitted to be genuine and eligible for the MEIS scheme. The record showed that the exporters had manifested their claim through surrounding export documents and that the competent authority had already issued MEIS scrips. The Tribunal held that such an error was procedural and could not defeat the substantive benefit of a beneficial export incentive scheme. Reliance was placed on the consistent approach that technical lapses, once supported by contemporaneous evidence and corrected in accordance with law, should not override the exporter's entitlement.Conclusion: Amendment of the shipping bills was permissible and the rejection of the request was unsustainable. The appeals succeeded in favour of the assessee.Ratio Decidendi: An inadvertent and rectifiable error in a shipping bill cannot defeat entitlement to an export incentive where contemporaneous documentary evidence supports the claim and the amendment is sought under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.