Order date – 15 December 2022

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s Jindal Drugs Pvt Ltd is an exporter, requested for alteration of ‘N’ to ‘Y’ in 55 nos. shipping bills filed for export of ‘anethole pure’ and ‘cineole pure’.
• But the request was rejected on the grounds that the request for amendment is not supported by documentary evidence, which was in existence at the time the goods were exported, as stipulated in Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the request is time barred in terms of clause 3(a) of the Customs Act 1962, and the request is time barred in terms of clause 3(a) of Board Circular 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 read with Section 149 of Customs Act.

Issue –

• Whether the shipping bills can be altered from ‘N’ to ‘Y’?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that the amendment sought by the appellant does not involve change of any of the particulars mandated for inclusion under the authority of section 50 of Customs Act, 1962. Nor is there any plea for alteration of endorsement, if any, made in the shipping bills under the authority of section 51 of Customs Act, 1962. 
• As per the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 and the corresponding provision in the Handbook of Procedure, the competent authority under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 directly and electronically sanctions rewards upon application by eligible exporters.
• The entire scheme is, thus, administered under the auspices of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) with no role envisaged for customs authorities beyond statutory assignment under section 51 of Customs Act, 1962. It is not within the purview of subordinate offices of Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) to deduce a bigger role in the scheme; nor to adopt power of veto except by statutory conferment.
• That public notice no. 40/2015-2020 dated 9th October 2015 and no. 47/2015-2020 dated 8th December 2015 enabled bills filed in April 2015 to September 2015 to be entertained for sanction despite erroneous option of ‘N’, and without recourse to amendment of shipping bills, is earnest of the facilitative function, and not regulatory restriction, intended by the endorsement prescribed by Handbook of Procedures appended to Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020.
• It is that very intent that is sought to be amended and the impossibility of documented intent as touchstone cannot be permitted to be the peg upon which denial of amendment is to be hung.
• The amendment, which merely has the consequence of data transference for informed decision making on eligibility for reward by competent authority, should have been permitted unless established evidence exists that the goods were not in conformity with details furnished in the shipping bills.
• Hence the appeal is allowed.