TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS), was shown as "NO". Consequently, the shipping bills were transmitted for claiming MEIS benefit. 3. Subsequently, the respondent, by letters dated 22.02.2021 and 08.09.2021, requested amendment of the aforesaid shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 by challenging the declaration from "NO" to "YES". The request was initially rejected. The matter thereafter travelled to the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, which remanded the matter for reconsideration. Upon such consideration, the Deputy Commissioner again rejected the request by Order-in-Original dated 12.01.2023. 4. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 allowed the respondent's appeal, inter alia, observing that Section 149, as applicable during the relevant period, did not prescribe any limitation for seeking amendment and that the omission appeared to be inadvertent. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue is before this Tribunal. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submits that the declaration "NO" was consciously made in all 59 shipping bills over a period of nearly 3 years and cannot subsequent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alia, constitutional-validity challenges, cases where a notification/instruction/order/circular has been held illegal or ultra virus, and specified classification/refund issues of legal or recurring nature. 10. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the records. 11. The Preliminary issue which arises for consideration is whether the present appeal filed by Revenue is liable to be entertained in view of the monetary-limit instructions issued by the Board. Since this objection goes to the very maintainability of the Departmental appeal, it is appropriate to decide the same before entertaining into the merits of the controversy under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. 12. It is not disputed before us that there is no demand of Customs duty, interest, fine or penalty involved in the present proceedings. The lis arises only from the respondent's request to amend 59 shipping bills so as to facilitate a claim for MEIS benefit. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, Revenue's position for the monetary value of the MEIS benefit should be taken as the amount in dispute, the material placed before us shows that the total benefit involved in Rs. 47,19,103/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing MEIS benefit. 17. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, empowers the proper officer, in his discretion, to authorize amendment of any document it has been presented in the Customs House. In respect of goods already exported, the proviso stipulates that such amendment can be permitted on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were exported. Thus, the statutory provision itself contemplates amendment even after exports; what is material is the existence of contemporaneous evidence supporting the amendment. Significantly during the period when the exports in question were made, Section 149 did not prescribed any specific period of limitation for making such an application. The statutory time limit for amendment was introduced subsequently. Therefore, a request relating to exports completed before the introduction of such limitation cannot be rejected merely by retrospectively importing the subsequently prescribed time limit into the earlier statutory provision. Judicial decisions dealing with Section 149 have consistently recognized that the provision can be invoked even after clearance or export where the amendment is capable of being ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive provision cannot be employed to read into Section 149a prohibition which the provision itself did not contain during the relevant period. The reliance placed upon Priya Blue Industries Ltd., supra and ITC Ltd., supra, also does not advance Revenue's case to the extent suggested. Those decisions recognize the legal consequences flowing from an assessment or self-assessment. They do not render Section 149 otiose. Subsequent judicial decisions have specifically recognized Section 149 as an independent statutory route for amendment of customs documents, subject to fulfillment of its conditions. Therefore, the proposition that finalization of export transactions completely bars recourse to Section 149 cannot be accepted. Indeed, the proviso to Section 149 expressly deals with amendment after goods have already been exported. Such an interpretation as canvassed by Revenue would substantially deprive the proviso of its intended operation. 21. We also find substance in the respondent's contention regarding the subsequently introduced limitation. The exports in the present case were effected during Financial year 2017-18 to 2019-20. The one-year restriction relied upon by Revenue wa....