TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unnoticed and, probably, unbeknown, as the expected fracas of a commercial engagement gone away was added to with much more than hissing on the part of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs. The description of the goods concerned in this dispute, brought before us by M/s Blue Spring, UAE, is not of relevance in this appeal. Nor is the value of the goods or, for that matter, any exemption notification that may, at some stage, have required scrutiny if such claim had been preferred. All that can be said, with certainty, is that the goods may not be prohibited for import for, if it were, the controversy would have forayed in a different direction. But that the torturous circumstances in which the Tribunal has had to delve into the consequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., there would be no dispute. The controversy, having its genesis in purported reneging of the contract by one of the parties, would have not been a dispute concerning customs authorities. Except for an instruction issued, with best of intentions and in public interest, by the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) and, that too, a procedural prescription in a particular context. Prosaically, it is all about amendment of a 'line' in a particular import, under the authority of '(3) If the proper officer is satisfied that the arrival manifest or import manifest or import report is in any way incorrect or incomplete, and that there was no fraudulent intention, he may permit it to be amended or supplemented.' in section 30 of Custo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar, the reference to 'non-negotiable' bill of lading with 'no objection certificate' from original consignee as essential pre-requisite has more to do with limitation on acquisition of title by endorsement and transfer of document. The circular itself is lacking elaboration of reasons for insistence on such certification as it should have in prescribing conditions that restrict exercise of discretion not envisaged in the statute. That lack, notwithstanding, any rectifiable deficiency as consequence should have been referred back for compliance or established as impossible. 6. It may not be out of place to note that, with order substituting M/s Amit Petrolubes Pvt Ltd for M/s Venture Impex as consignee, M/s Blue Spring FZ had no role inso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t having insisted on documentation prescribed in the impugned circular. 8. Thus it was that M/s Venture Impex, who may have had interest in the goods but not in discharge of duty liability, and the jurisdictional customs authorities, who had interest in duty liability being discharged but none whatsoever in ownership of the goods, converged in disputing amendment that enabled M/s Amit Petrolubes Pvt Ltd to pay the duty and clear the goods. The first appellate authority had, before it, no proceedings other than one among retention of the original consignee in the manifest, affirming substitution of the consignee as ordered by the 'proper officer' or restoration before the 'proper officer' for re-determination in factual circumstances brou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 1st consignee M/s Venture Impex should clear the goods after complying with the relevant laws, rules and regulations within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the department will be at liberty to deal with the goods as deemed fit in accordance with law including allowing amendment in the name of the consignee in the IGM as requested by the supplier/shipper M/s Blue Spring FZE, UAE.' with the consequence that a relief, if it could be called that and not sought for in either of the appeals under consideration, was ordered. 11. M/s Venture Impex has discharged duty liability as obligated under section 47(2) of Customs Act, 1962 and only clearance remains which is issue between custodian and them. The amend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dizes the erasure of the amendment. That jeopardy has not been overcome, and, to that extent, the reversal of amendment is not conclusive. 13. M/s Venture Impex had, by filing bill of entry under section 46 of Customs Act, 1962, held itself out to be importer and should have, under the terms of section 47(2) of Customs Act, 1962, discharged the self-assessed duty liability immediately or, if delayed, with appropriate interest. That duty liability has been discharged is on record in the submission of Learned Authorized Representative. This, then is not the situation envisaged in section 48 of Customs Act, 1962 though that is, at best, between 'custodian' and M/s Venture Impex. However, it is not clear from the submission of Learned Author....