Whether rectification in bill of entry possible for clerical mistake?

PJ/Case Law/2012-13/2034

Case:- C.C. (IMPORT & GENERAL), NEW DELHI VERSUS BOIMERIEUX INDIA PVT. LTD.

Citation:-2014 (299) E.L.T. 487 (Tri.-Del.)

Brief Facts:-Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed present appeal.
The respondent imported medical instrument and kits from their principal in USA. As per the assessee, wrong value was mentioned in their sale invoice which was wrongly picked up by them and mentioned in the bill of entry and duty paid accordingly. On realization of above mistake, they filed refund claim of Rs. 15,71,732/- so excess paid by them. The said refund claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce documents in support of their refund claim. The importer was not present on the date of hearing fixed by the original adjudicating authority.
On appeal against the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the clerical mistake creeping into the assessment documents which can be remedied by taking recourse to Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 by way of reassessment. Accordingly, he set aside the order and remanded back to the adjudicating authority to re-assess the bill of entry.

Appellant Contention:-The revenue’s main objection is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand. Without going into legal issue, we find that admittedly, the Tribunal has power to remand. It was also contended that as there was no challenge to the assessment of bill of entry, refund claim cannot be filed by the importer in terms of law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock India Pvt. Ltd. – 2000(120) E.L.T. 285(S.C.) and in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CCE – 2004(172) E.L.T. 145(S.C.)

Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submissions from both sides and perused the record. We find that the respondent imported medical instrument and kits from their principal in USA.
Further objection of the Revenue that inasmuch as there was no challenge to the assessment of bill of entry, refund claim cannot be filed by the importer in terms of law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock India Pvt. Ltd. – 2000(120) E.L.T. 285(S.C.) and in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CCE – 2004(172) E.L.T. 145(S.C.). However, we find that this is case where originally there was no ‘lis’ between the Revenue and the importer and there was no decision by the proper officer on the same. Admittedly, it was the case of clerical mistake. Inasmuch as the provisions of Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 allow to importer to seek amendment. The issue has been examined by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi – 2010(250) E.L.T. 30(Del.). As such we find no merit in the contention of the Revenue. Inasmuch as the Commissioner (Appeals) has properly remanded the matter to the lower authorities for examining the assesee’s claim, after scrutiny of the documents, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue’s appeal is rejected.

Decision:-Appeal rejected.

Comment:-The crux of this case is that the importer is allowed to rectify a clerical mistake in the bill of entry filed under section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the present case, as the excess duty was paid on account of considering wrong value mentioned in the sales invoice, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify the evidences and the appeal filed by the revenue was rejected on being devoid of merits.

Comments

PJ/Case Law/2012-13/2034

Post a Comment

Query