Powers are given to officers to sub-serve justice and not to deny them
THE appellant while filing the Bill of Entry did not file any freight bill and, therefore, the Customs authorities took the value of freight as 20% of the FOB value and the goods were assessed to duty accordingly.
The appellant noticed the mistake and immediately furnished the freight bill and sought amendment of the B/E under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. They also filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid of Rs.15,02,622/-.
While the request for amendment of the B/E was pending, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant did not challenge the assessment.
In the meantime, the appellant sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 on the fate of his application for amendment of B/E from the note-sheet in the file concerned and this is what the Commissioner had mentioned in his noting -
“the letter of party dated 02/05/2009 may be considered as refund application as it has been held in such cases that letter of party (even though not on prescribed format) can be considered as a refund application. If the department felt that it is not a proper case under Section 149 we should have advised them. Please process the case as a refund case.”
On the appeal, after hearing both sides, the CESTAT observed -
+ The only condition required to be satisfied for availing the provisions of Section 149 is that the documentary evidence on the basis of which the amendment is sought, should be in existence when the goods were cleared. In the instant case the Bill of Entry was filed on 21/04/2009 and the freight invoice indicating the amount of freight is dated 02/04/2009. It was only an inadvertent error committed by the CHA in not furnishing the freight invoice along with the Bill of Entry.
+ Powers of discretion under Section 149 has been provided to the Customs Officers to allow amendments in genuine cases. From the facts available on record and the notings made by the various sections of the Customs department, it is evident that the appellant's case is a genuine one. That is the reason why the Commissioner directed the lower authorities to treat the letter dated 02/05/2009 as refund application and grant relief to the appellant accordingly.
+ In spite of such decision by the superior authorities, the lower authority has chosen to disregard the direction of the Commissioner and deny the relief to the appellant.
Holding that the department ought to have allowed the amendment of the Bill of Entry u/s 149 and given consequential relief to the appellant, the matter was remanded.