Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: igm amendment in The Commissioner Of Customs Ns Gen Jnch ... vs B K Rekhatex (Hk) Ltd on 22 January, 2026Matching Fragments
12 Subsequently, in light of the aforesaid Order and Judgement dated 25.03.2022, the Respondent, through its Advocate's letter dated 19.07.2022, made detailed representations before the Department claiming that it was rightfully entitled to the said goods in question. The Respondent, through its Advocate's email and letter dated 22.12.2022, also requested the Department to place the Appellant's case before the Commissioner to decide upon the title of the goods.
13 Without granting any opportunity of hearing, the Deputy Commissioner passed the Order-in-original dated 28.12.2022, rejecting the request for IGM amendment and for change in consignee name.
JANUARY 22, 2026 S.R.JOSHI 1-cuapp-62-2025.doc 14 Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 28.12.2022, the Respondent preferred an Appeal under Section 128(1) of the Act before the Learned Commissioner (Appeals).
15 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide his order-in-
appeal dated 26.04.2023, held that (i) the issue of ownership stands resolved undisputedly, in the hands of the Respondent; and (ii) the original authority ought to have allowed the amendment to the IGM in favour of the Consignee.
19 Since no response was received by the Respondent or its Advocates for amendment to the IGM, Nikom Copper expressed its inability to purchase the imported goods, and accordingly, the Respondent has now approached one M/s G.K Wire Industries.
20 Basis the revised BLs provided by 2 Shipping Lines, manual amendment in Item No. 88 of IGM No. 2240493 dated 30.11.2019 for BL ASCOKHLNSA1900054 and Item No 130 of IGM No. 2241062 dated 07.12.2019 for BL ASCOKHLNSA1900063 has been carried out by the department and the Consignee's name and address was amended to M/s G. K. Wire Industries under the provisions of Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962.
27 Mr. Mishra submitted that the Learned CESTAT has erred in treating the amendment to the IGM as a procedural act under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, ignoring the CBEC Circular No. 14/2017-Cus dated 11.04.2017.
28 Mr. Mishra further submitted that ownership of the subject goods is under dispute and requires adjudication.
29 Mr. Mishra further submitted that CESTAT misconstrued the limited scope of the Order-in-appeal dated 26.04.2023, which permitted only amendment to the IGM without affecting the Bills of Entry filed by M/s Shine Metal, seizure of goods and other liabilities of M/s Shine Metal.