Case law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 7 Dec 2022

Posco Maharashtra Steel Pvt Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai…

Legal principle

An amendment request under section 149, Customs Act, 1962, may be refused only for sufficient reason after notice and hearing; ascertainability of the facts at the time of export — not mere lapse of time under a non-statutory circular — governs limitation, and eligibility under an FTP scheme such as DFIA is for the DGFT, not the customs proper officer, to decide.

Court decision

The Tribunal set aside the rejection of the amendment request, allowed the appeal, and directed the respondent-Commissioner to effect the amendments in the shipping bills as sought by the appellant.

Facts

M/s Posco Maharashtra Steel Pvt Ltd filed 230 shipping bills between July 2017 and May 2019 exporting cold rolled steel products — non-grain-oriented silicon electrical steel, CRCA skin/temper passed, full hard, and galvanized/galvannealed sheets, strips and wide coils — and later sought amendment of those shipping bills under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 to enable migration from the zero-duty EPCG scheme to the EPCG-cum-DFIA scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy. The Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai, by order/communication dated 1 June 2021, rejected the request as barred by limitation under CBEC circular no. 36/2010-Cus dated 23 September 2010 and because non-availability of the goods for examination precluded verification of conformity with SION entries and value addition norms. The exporter appealed to CESTAT, Mumbai.

Key provisions