Amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 cannot be blocked by circular-based delay limits or correction of inadvertent coding errors.
Section 149 of the Customs Act permits amendment of shipping bills on the basis of documentary evidence and does not contain any limitation period; a departmental circular cannot impose a time bar inconsistent with that statutory power, so rejection solely for delay was unsustainable. Correction of the billing code from "00" to "26" was also allowed because the export documents already showed the DFIA basis, and the change merely corrected an inadvertent broker error rather than effecting a fresh conversion of scheme. The appeals accordingly failed and the amendment was sustained.
Issues: (i) Whether the time limit prescribed in the departmental circular could restrict amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether correction of the billing code from "00" to "26" amounted to an impermissible conversion from free shipping to the DFIA scheme.
Issue (i): Whether the time limit prescribed in the departmental circular could restrict amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: Section 149 confers power to amend shipping documents on the basis of documentary evidence and does not prescribe any period of limitation. A circular cannot impose a time restriction that overrides the statutory provision. The rejection of the request solely on the ground of delay under the circular was therefore unsustainable.
Conclusion: The limitation in the circular could not defeat the amendment sought under Section 149, and the objection based on time bar failed.
Issue (ii): Whether correction of the billing code from "00" to "26" amounted to an impermissible conversion from free shipping to the DFIA scheme.
Analysis: The export had already been covered by DFIA applications and file numbers, and the shipping bills reflected the DFIA basis except for the mistaken entry of the code. The change sought was only to correct an inadvertent error made by the customs broker. Non-opening of the consignment for physical examination did not, by itself, convert the transaction into a different scheme. The first proviso to Section 149 did not bar such correction on the facts found.
Conclusion: The request was a permissible correction of an inadvertent mistake and not an impermissible scheme conversion.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and the order permitting amendment of the shipping bills was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A departmental circular cannot impose a limitation inconsistent with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and correction of an inadvertent coding error in shipping bills is permissible where the export documents and record already disclose the intended DFIA basis.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
