TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....einafter, 'impugned order') passed by the Office of Commissioner of Customs (Export), ICD, Tughlakabad. Vide the impugned order, the application filed by the Petitioner for amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 was rejected. 3. This is the second round of litigation by the Petitioner whose shipping bills are not permitted to be amended by the Customs Department. In the first round of litigation, this Court had considered the entire matter and had passed order dated 22nd July, 2025 in W.P. (C) 10409/2025 titled M/s Guru Kripa Enterprises v. Office of the Commissioner of Customs which reads as under: "2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r submits that the said representation was first filed on 16th April, 2025 and then again on 30th May, 2025. The prayer of Mr. Sholab Arora, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Customs Department ought to take a decision in this matter as the refund of the Petitioner has been held up. 7. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, ld. Counsel submits that there are stringent conditions under Section 149 of the Act for permitting editing and amendment in shipping bills. The representation in question has been filed by the Petitioner after almost one year of the exports having been effected. It is further stated that in case of energy drinks, the same requires deeper scrutiny. 8. Mr. Arora, ld. Counsel for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he earlier writ petition and the representation has been defeated as the only reason given by the concerned official is that the shipping bills along with the cess payment were not uploaded on the e-sanchit platform. This was an inadvertent error which actually led to the filing of the first writ petition and the representations. 7. On the last date of hearing i.e., 14th November, 2025, after hearing the ld. Counsels for the parties, the following directions were issued by this Court: "8. Accordingly, let an affidavit be filed by the next date of hearing which shall be deposed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the officer who has passed the impugned order. 9. At this stage, Mr. Srivastava, ld. SSC submits that the impugned order was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....198/2025 titled Qamar Jahan v. Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors. had approved the Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter, 'SOP') for the Customs Department when dealing with baggage cases wherein it was clearly mentioned that the name of the officer concerned who is passing the order shall also be mentioned in the full along with the designation. The same has been published by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide letter dated 17th May, 2025. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as under: "H. The Order-in-Original should be issued at the earliest and the same should be delivered to the address - postal, e-mail id as well as the WhatsApp number-provided by the Passenger(s....