AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noplus LD 2420, availing the benefit exemption under Notification No. 12/2012 for payment of basis customs duty at 7.5%. Accordingly, the Assessment Authority assessed the bill of entry. Thereafter, the appellant requested the assessment authority to extend the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011. The assessment authority vide letter dtd. 25.05.2014 informed the Appellant that their request cannot be entertained. Being Aggrieved with the Assessment order Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dtd. 07.11.2014 upheld the decisions of Original Authority. Aggrieved with the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant have come before this tribunal for relief. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng officer has grossly erred in denying the re-assessment of goods. 5. He also submits that in the instant case, the assessing officers were required to follow the provisions of re-assessment of the Bill of Entry as contained in Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. The assessing officer was required to correct the clerical mistake occurred at the time of filing of the impugned Bill of Entry as the lapse had occurred on account of clerical error on the part of the Customs Broker. However the same was not done. 6. He placed reliance on the following judgments. (i) Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Symrise Pvt. Ltd. - 2019(367) ELT 227. (ii) Modison Metal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2009(248) ELT 301 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Central Government, the Board or any officer of customs under this Act, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Central Government, the Board or such officer of customs or the successor in office of such officer, as the case may be." 9. From the above, it can be seen that as far as Section 149 is concerned, amendment is to be allowed on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time when the goods were cleared, deposited or exported. The only restriction is Sections 30 and 41 of Customs Act, 1962 which relates to export and import manifest which are not allowed to be amended of when there is a fraudulent intention. In the case of amended document unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought to be made are not on the strength of any new document. This right of the importer is not removed or whittled down by the judgments in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC which is relied upon by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). This issue was not before the Apex Court when their lordships had passed the said judgment. The judgment in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. is not applicable as Section 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, independent, provides for correction of mistakes in any decision or order by an officer of Customs. 12. We also find that Tribunal had recorded the following findings on the provisions contained in Section 149 in I.P. Rings Ltd. v. CC(AIR), 2006 (202) E.L.T. 61 (Tri.-Chen.) : "Amendment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any document, after it has been presented in the Custom House. By the application for conversion of the Shipping Bill, appellant was requesting the proper officer, to exercise this statutory power vested in such authority, to amend a Shipping Bill. The statutory condition subject to which such amendment could or could not be made is described in the proviso to Section 14S of the Customs Act, 1962". We are in agreement with the above findings of the Tribunal as regards an importer's right under Section 149 of the Act. 13. We also find that in Hero Cycles v. Union of India reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 490 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, held that the mere fact that there was an inadvertent error, on the part of the importer, i....