Case Law Details
Aditya International Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs Appraising Group (Madras High Court)
The legal tussle between Aditya International Ltd and the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Appraising Group) at the Madras High Court centers around the amendment of 42 Bills of Entry for silk imports. The case delves into the complexities of customs procedures and the application of Countervailing Duty (CVD) exemptions under specific notifications.
Aditya International Ltd imported silk fabrics from China under 42 Bills of Entry and paid approximately Rs. 60,00,000/- in Countervailing Duty (CVD). The company claimed entitlement to a CVD exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004 dated 09.07.2004, which stipulates conditions under which certain imported goods can be exempt from CVD. On April 29, 2023, Aditya International submitted a formal request to the customs authorities to amend the Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Legal Framework
Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, provides the legal basis for amending Bills of Entry, allowing for corrections even after the goods have been cleared for home consumption. However, such amendments are contingent on the provisos and conditions set forth in the Act, necessitating a careful examination by the customs authorities.
Petitioner’s Argument
Aditya International contended that despite their compliance with the requirements for the CVD exemption, the customs authorities failed to take timely action on their amendment request. The lack of response led to the filing of a writ petition, seeking judicial intervention to compel the customs authorities to amend the Bills of Entry and recognize the exemption.
Respondent’s Stand
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, represented by Mr. J.Vasu, opposed the petition, arguing that the request for amendment should not be granted in these proceedings. The respondent emphasized that the proper procedure under Section 149 must be followed, especially considering the request was made post-clearance of goods for home consumption.
Court’s Decision
The Madras High Court acknowledged the procedural requirements under Section 149 but also recognized the delay and inaction by the customs authorities. The court refrained from issuing a direct mandamus to amend the Bills of Entry but directed the customs authorities to consider and dispose of Aditya International’s request within six weeks. The decision mandates the authorities to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to present their case, ensuring adherence to legal norms while expediting the resolution process.
Conclusion
The ruling by the Madras High Court in the case of Aditya International Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs underscores the importance of procedural compliance and timely administrative action in customs matters. The court’s directive to dispose of the amendment request within a specified period aims to balance the enforcement of customs laws with the need for administrative efficiency and responsiveness. This judgment serves as a significant reference for importers seeking relief under similar circumstances and highlights the judicial oversight in ensuring fair administrative practices.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent
to expeditiously amend the 42 Bills of Entry as mentioned herein above under Section 149 of the Customs Act, as prayed for by the petitioner in their request letter dated 29.04.2023 to avail the benefit of exemption from CVD under the Central Excise Notification No.30/2004 dated 9th July, 2004, and can make an application for refund under Section 27 of the Act for excess CVD paid.
.1. The petitioner seeks a direction for the amendment of 42 Bills of Entry pursuant to the petitioner’s application for amendment.
2. The petitioner states that silk fabrics were imported from China under 42 Bills of Entry after paying Countervailing Duty (CVD) of about Rs.60,00,000/-. By asserting that the petitioner is entitled to CVD exemption under Central Excise Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004, the petitioner, by letter dated 29.04.2023, requested the respondent to amend the 42 Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act). On the ground that no action was taken on the request for amendment, the present writ petition was filed.
3. Mr. J.Vasu, learned junior standing counsel, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to seek an order directing amendment in these proceedings.
4. The documents on record include the petitioner’s request for amendment on 29.04.2023. A request for amendment has to be considered in accordance with Section 149 of the Customs Act, including the proviso thereto, especially when such request is made after the relevant goods were cleared for home consumption. Therefore, a mandamus directing amendment cannot be issued at this juncture. Nonetheless, the respondent may be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s request.
5. Accordingly, W.P.No.4505 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s request for amendment dated 29.04.2023 in accordance with Section 149 of the Customs Act. The said request shall be disposed of within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. No costs.
Author Bio
