AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar
This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit amendment of the Bills of Entry Nos.
8053958 dated 26.9.2012, 7948185 dated 14.9.2012 and 8005720 dated 21.9.2012 as requested by the petitioner company in their letter dated
19.10.2012 addressed to the first respondent. Heard Mr. P. Mahadevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who was instructed by
an Appraising Officer present in court.
The petitioner imported Silk Fabrics under three Bills of Entry. The present case relates to the following three Bills of Entry:-
Petitioner filed the documents required for completion of customs formalities. Insofar as the first Bill of Entry No. 8053058 dated 26.9.2012,
petitioner made payment to the supplier M/s. Zhejiang Cathaya Transtra Co. Ltd., as per the invoice. At the time of processing the customs
documents, petitioner states that they found the quantity mentioned in the invoice did not match with the quantity mentioned in the packing list. At
this juncture, the supplier communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 10.10.2012 that there was a mix up at their end and the invoice was not
made for proper amount and the importer, the petitioner herein had made short payment for the shipment in question. Similarly, in respect of other
two bills of entry also the invoice was for a lesser amount whereas the quantity as per packing list was higher. The supplier sent the revised invoice
for the correct quantity as per packing list bearing the same date. On receipt of the clarification from the supplier and the revised invoice, petitioner
submitted a letter dated 19.10.2012 to the first respondent to amend the three Bills of Entry to show the correct quantity of silk fabrics imported.
Pleading that the error was realised by the petitioner and have taken corrective action immediately, they sought for amendment of the Bills of Entry.
The amendment was sought for even prior to assessment by the appropriate officer. Since no action has been taken to correct the entries and
complete the assessment formalities within the time frame, the present writ petition has been filed for the above stated relief.
Pending writ petition there is also a petition filed for a direction to release the goods provisionally in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act
1962.
On instruction Mr. P. Mahadevan, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that there is no proof for submitting the request letter dated
19.10.2012, which is denied by the petitioner''s counsel stating that it is available on file. Insofar as provisional release of goods is concerned, Shri
Murugappan, learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 27.11.2012 they have made a request through facsimile to the Assistant
Commissioner of Customs for provisional release of goods.
In the above factual background it is now stated by Mr. P. Mahadevan, learned counsel for the respondents that in respect of bill of entry No.
8053958 dated 26.9.2012, a notice in terms of section 124 Customs Act 1962 has been issued for the alleged violation of Sections 111(m) and
112(a) of the Customs Act and has been served on the petitioner on 27.11.2012.
The issue whether the amendment of the Bills of Entry can be granted or not is for the authority to decide. The petitioner has made a request for
amendment and that has to be considered on merits either way.
In such view of the matter, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner''s claim for amendment of the Bills of Entry as per the
request letter dated 19.10.2012. If the Department is not inclined to proceed on that lines and they want to pursue the show-cause notice
proceedings on account of alleged misdeclaration, the petitioner is directed to submit a suitable reply to the show-cause notice insofar as one Bill of
Entry is concerned and have the matter adjudication in accordance with law expeditiously. Insofar as other two Bills of Entry is concerned, the
petitioner will co-operate with the Department for inspection and seek amendment of the Bills of Entry which will also be considered on merits.
Insofar as the plea for provisional release of the goods is concerned, if the goods are not prohibited goods, which admittedly appears to be so,
the petitioner has a right to seek provisional release of the goods. Petitioner is entitled to give a request along with a copy of this order and the
authority will consider and pass appropriate orders for provisional release of the goods in terms of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act
relating to provisional release of the goods. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.