Whether rectification in Bill of entry regarding import of 5 machines instead of 6 mistakenly declared by CHA permissible?

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2006

Case:-UFLEX LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

Citation:-2013(298) E.L.T. 476 (Tri.-Del.)

Brief Facts:-As per facts on record, appellant imported 5 machines i.e. Copper plating machine, Nickel plating machine, Degreasing machine, cleaning machine and proofing machine for a total value of US $ 1,70,000. Bill of Entry was filed along with the Commercial invoice along with cover invoice, packing list and bill of lading. However, it is seen that CHA while filing the bill of entry dated 30-12-2005, mentioned 6 items instead of imported 5 items. It is seen that proofing machines was mentioned two times in the said Bill of entry. The same was assessed by the proper officer and the goods were cleared on payment of duty.

Subsequently the appellants realized the above mistake and filed an application on 10-1-2006 for amendment of Bill of entry in terms of provisions of Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962. The said application was rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellants have themselves made the declaration and the goods stand cleared as per the assessment done by the proper officer.

On appeal against the above order, the appellant placed on record the entire documentary evidence showing that it was only 5 machines which were imported by them and in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, such an amendment to the Bill of Entry is permissible if the importer is able to establish from the documentary evidence in existence at the time of import that the declaration in the Bill of entry was incorrect. Though, the appellant placed on record the entire evidence indicating that it was only 5 machines which were imported, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal by observing that there was nothing in support of claim of the appellant and as the goods were cleared as per the declaration given by the appellant, the amendment cannot be permitted. He accordingly, rejected the appeal.

Appellant Contentions:-The appellant placed the entire documentary evidence showing that only 5 machines were imported by them and prayed that the amendment in the bill of entry filed by them should be permitted.

Respondent Contentions:-Therespondent reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.

Reasoning of Judgment:-We have heard both sides duly represented by appellant and respondent. As regards the objection of the lower authorities, that the appellant have themselves made the declaration and as such cannot be permitted amendment of the declaration made in bill of entry as the amendment would be necessitated only when there is wrong declaration made by the importer. As such, the reasoning of the lower authorities that the importer has himself made the declaration and as such, amendment cannot be permitted, is not in accordance with the common interpretation of the provisions of law.

As regards the documentary evidence, we have seen that the contract entered into between the appellant and the supplier of the goods, the LC opened by the appellant and invoices raised by the supplier, packing list accompanying the goods and the gate passes showing clearance of the container as mentioned in the Bill of Entry. All the above evidence leads to only one inevitable conclusion that only 5 machines were imported by the appellant. In such a scenario, the declaration of proofing machine two times in the Bill of Entry is an obvious mistake committed by the CHA. It is only such type of mistake which is permitted to be amended in terms of Section 149 of the Act. Further, all the evidence relied upon by the importer are the documentary evidence, which were available at the time of clearance of goods. As such, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to make such amendment in the Bill of Entries. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:-The essence of this case is that under section 149 of Custom Act, 1962, the rectification in the bill of entry is permissible if the same is supported by documentary evidence. In the present case, as the documents clearly indicated that only 5 machines were imported by the assessee and declaration of 6 machines in the bill of entry was mistakenly made by the CHA, the rectification was allowed.

Comments

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2006

Post a Comment

Query