Case Law Details
Lenovo India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Hewlett Packard Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Customs & ors. reported in 2020 (10) T.M.I. 970 – Madras High Court has held that the proviso to Section 149 contemplates an opportunity to be extended to an assessee to produce such documents that were in existence at the stipulated time that would serve to establish the error, if any, in the Bill-of-Entry. For this reason, the rejection of the plea for amendment under Section 149 ibid. by the commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. In the present case, the appellant claims that all such necessary documents were available, but however, it is for the Proper Officer to verify the availability of the same at the relevant point of time. This job is therefore left to the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain and pass a speaking order.
Any amendment/re-assessment has to be in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and by the Proper Officer. Hence, it serves no purpose if the case is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) since it is the Proper Officer who could call for any documents and then exercise his discretion to order amendment or reject, subject to the provisions of Section 149 ibid. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority/ Proper Officer to verify the claim of the appellant strictly in terms of Section 149 ibid. and thereafter, pass an appropriate speaking order after giving reasonable opportunities to the appellant. All the contentions are left open.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
The only issue that arises for my consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant can seek reassessment/ amendment of its Bills-of-Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962?
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
