https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772664 CESTAT Mumbai allowed appeal regarding substitution of importer under section 30(3) of Customs Act, 1962. Deputy Commissioner's refusal to amend import manifest was overturned. Court found no fraudulent intent when original consignee provided no objection certificate and showed unwillingness to clear goods. Original authority failed to consider that substitute importer was ready to discharge duties promptly while original consignee delayed clearance without seeking required extensions under section 48. First appellate authority correctly permitted amendment considering facts and circumstances. Court emphasized no legal provision prevents substitution of importers and criticized customs authorities for preserving claims of unwilling consignee over efficient clearance process. en-us Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:37:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772664 CESTAT Mumbai allowed appeal regarding substitution of importer under section 30(3) of Customs Act, 1962. Deputy Commissioner's refusal to amend import manifest was overturned. Court found no fraudulent intent when original consignee provided no objection certificate and showed unwillingness to clear goods. Original authority failed to consider that substitute importer was ready to discharge duties promptly while original consignee delayed clearance without seeking required extensions under section 48. First appellate authority correctly permitted amendment considering facts and circumstances. Court emphasized no legal provision prevents substitution of importers and criticized customs authorities for preserving claims of unwilling consignee over efficient clearance process. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772664