Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Thereafter, M/s.Bhatia Global Trading Ltd. had approached Commissioner of Customs(Import), Bhubaneswar on 30.10.2012 requesting for cancellation of the Bills of Entry and also amendment to the respective IGM filed by the importer M/s.MMTC and M/s.STC, on the ground that they have entered into agreement with the overseas seller/supplier and purchased the said consignments, which were not cleared by the previous importers. Also, in the said letters they had requested for cancellation of Bills of Entry filed by the previous importers M/s MMTC & M/s STC and for filing fresh Bills of Entry for clearance of the said consignments for consumption on the basis of their transaction value and the rate of duty prevailing on the date of filing the fresh Bills of Entry. Further, they have mentioned that they were willing to pay the duty, interest etc. as per the earlier assessed Bills of Entry, on provisional basis, without prejudice to their right of claiming the correct liability as per the fresh Bills of Entry, allowed to be filed, after cancellation of the earlier Bills of Entry. More or less similar worded letters were also written by the steamer agent seeking amendment to IGMs filed earlier. Correspondences were made with the department by the Appellant repeating the same requests from time to time.

6. Shri Ramesh Nair, Ld.Advocate for the Appellants, at the outset submitted that since the imported goods were neither cleared nor its consideration were remitted to the overseas seller/supplier by the previous importers, namely, M/s.MMTC and M/s.STC, the overseas supplier chose to sale the goods to other buyers in India as he continued to be the owner of the said goods. The Appellants had entered into an agreement with the overseas supplier in August/September, 2012 for purchase of the said imported consignment. Consequently, the previous importers namely M/s.MMTC and M/s.STC, who had not remitted any amount to the overseas supplier, agreed to issue no objection in favour of the new consignees/importers, and accordingly, all relevant imported documents were handed over and endorsed in favour of the Appellants. The Ld.Advocate further submitted that after getting possession of all the documents relating to import of the said goods, they have requested the Customs authorities for amendment to IGMs filed earlier, for incorporating the name of the Appellant as importer, in place of M/s MMTC or M/s STC, as the case may be, in the respective IGMs. The Appellant had also requested for cancellation of the Bills of Entry filed by the earlier importers , and for filing fresh Bills of Entry for clearance of the said goods for home consumption. In the respective applications, it is also mentioned that Appellants would be accepting on provisional basis, the duty assessed in the respective Bills of Entry applying the rate of duty and exchange rate prevailing on the date of assessment of the earlier Bills of Entry and also the value declared in the said Bills of Entry with interest, without prejudice to their right, pending finalization of the issue, in accordance with law. On a query from the Bench on the status of the respective Bills of Entry filed by M/s MMTC & M/s STC, the importers, the Ld. Advocate has fairly accepted that the earlier Bills of Entry were finally assessed and the importers have not filed Appeal against the said assessment. The Ld. Adv. explaining the intention of the Appellant for provisional payment of assessed duty, interest, etc. and amendment to IGMs & for filing fresh Bills of Entry, was to avail the benefit, if any, available to them as per law due to change in the rate of duty and the transaction value as on the date they purchased the uncleared consignment from the overseas seller/supplier and not to defraud the Revenue. He has submitted that the Appellants might be ready to discharge the duty, interest and other liabilities, as per the assessed Bills of Entry, so as to bring an end to the present dispute/ litigation, for which he sought time to get instructions.

8. Shri A.K.Raha, Ld.Special Counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the Applicants request for amendment to IGMs and also cancellation of earlier Bills of Entry were rejected mainly on the ground of substantial loss of revenue to the exchequer. The Ld. Special Counsel has also fairly admitted that since the assessed Bills of Entry were not challenged either by the Department or by the earlier importers M/s.MMTC or M/s.STC, the duty determined in both these cases are binding on both sides. It is his contention that once the Appellants are ready willing to discharge finally all the duty liability along with interest and other charges, if any, as per assessed Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012, till the date of clearance/removal of the imported goods from the custody of the Customs Department, there should not be any other reason, not to accept their request for amending the respective IGMs to the extent of change of name of the importers, and consider their application seeking amendment to the Bills of Entry, only to the extent of change of name of the importer in the respective Bills of entry, so as to facilitate them to discharge all the liabilities and clear the goods for home consumption. It is his contention that he has no objection in accepting the statement of the Ld. Adv. made before this Tribunal in this regard.

11. We find that the authorities below rejected their request, mainly on the ground that the amendment to IGM would result in substantial loss of revenue and thus the intention of the Appellants were fraudulent. In other words, the rejection of the request of the Appellant was solely on the apprehension of the Revenue that consequent to the amendment to respective IGMs and after filing the fresh Bill of Entry, the Appellant would seek re-assessment of the imported goods, already finally assessed and would claim the benefit of reduction in the rate of duty and value claiming the date of filing of the fresh Bill of Entry as the relevant date for assessment of goods. We find merit in the apprehension of the Department of substantial loss of revenue on account of downward revision in assessable value as well as in the rate of duty on the date of filing fresh Bills of Entry by the Appellant for the same goods which were earlier assessed and payment of duty against each of the Bill Entry was pending and proceeding underSec.48 of the Customs Act,1962 have been initiated. However, in the present scenario, we do not find any reason for harbouring the said apprehension any more. The Ld. Advocate after due instruction from the Appellants has made a categorical statement, now, before this Tribunal that they would discharge all the liabilities i.e. assessed duty, interest and other charges which would be arising out of the said assessed Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012, respectively, while clearing the imported goods from the custody of the Customs authorities. If the Appellants are ready to discharge the duty assessed by the Department relating Bills of Entry Nos.5365734 and 6052529 dated 02.12.2011 and 21.02.2012, respectively, and other liabilities as on the date of clearance of goods, we do not see any reason as to why the amendment to the IGMs requested by them, only to the extent of change of the names of the importers, be not allowed, as the principal ground for rejection of such request, is no more relevant. We also find that for the purpose of payment of the assessed liabilities and facilitating clearance of the goods, the Ld. Adv. for the Appellants has submitted that instead of requesting cancellation of earlier Bills of Entry and filing of fresh Bills of Entry, they would now seek amendment to the Bills of Entry to the extent of replacing their name as importer in place of M/s MMTC or M/s STC, as the case may be, which in our opinion, deserves to be considered by the Department, when the Appellants are willing to discharge all their liabilities against the said imported goods. In our view, this is the pragmatic solution to put an end to the dispute/litigation, in the interest of both sides and to meet the ends of justice. The Ld. Spl. Counsel for the Revenue has also accepted the said solution. Since both sides have agreed and reached to an amicable solution, in our view, it is not necessary to enter into other technical niceties of the case, as the above observations are made on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. In the result, we set aside the impugned Order and remand the case to the adjudicating authority, with the following directions to give effect to our above observation.