Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: igm amendment in Viterra India Private Ltd vs Union Of India on 31 July, 2025Matching Fragments
(b) Allow the amendment of the IGM No. 2167473 dated 17.06.2017 to reflect the Petitioners as the new buyers of the consignment in question;
(c) In the alternative, if the Petitioners be permitted to clear the consignment under the new Bill of Entry No.5335128 dated 23.02.2018 by applying the rate of duty applicable as on the date of import, i.e. 20.06.2017;
3. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:
3.1 The petitioner is a Private Limited Company, inter alia, engaged in the trading of agricultural goods such as pulses, grain, wheat, etc. 3.2 Respondent No. 5 is the shipping agent who has filed IGM No.2167473 dated 17.06.2017 under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and who has filed the application dated 4.12.2017 for amendment of the IGM, to amend the name of the consignee from 'Sharp Corp Ltd to that of 'Agricore Commodities Pvt. Ltd.
3.16 In November 2017, in terms of S.No.20A of Notification No. 84/2017-Cus. dated 08.11.17 BCD on the imported goods came to be imposed at the rate of 50%. However, the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) was still exempt vide S.No.45 of the Notification No. 2/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.17.
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4510/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined 3.17 It is the case of the petitioner that by way of communication dated 5.10.2017, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was informed about failure of importer to take the delivery of consignment covered by Bill of Entry dated 20.6.2017. It was, therefore, intimated to the authority that 32250 MT of goods have, therefore, been sold to the petitioners. In wake of such factual changes, a request was made for amending the IGM so as to enable consequential amendment to the Bills of Entry. Pursuant thereto, an application was made by the petitioner qua amendment of Import General Manifest (IGM). For amendment of IGM, various communications were addressed by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that despite making regular follow-ups, there was no response from the respondent for amendment of IGM. Therefore, left with no NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4510/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined alternative, petitioner filed a fresh Bill of Entry covering the consignment in question, under protest. Petitioners had filed new Bill of Entry on 22.2.2018 under protest. 3.18 It is the case of the petitioners that fresh Bill of Entry dated 23.2.2018 was being assessed to duty at rate applicable on the date of filing of Bill of Entry, treating them to be fresh imposed. Therefore, the petitioners communicated to the respondent, requesting for clearance of cargo by applying the rate of duty as on 20.6.2017 as the goods were imported on the said date. However, no response was received from the respondent authorities to the petitioners. Since no response was forthcoming from the respondent and taking into account the nature of goods in question, petitioners had preferred the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4510/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined present writ-petition on 7.3.2018. Thereafter, during pendency of the present writ-petition, a communication was addressed by the respondent authorities on 8.3.2018, informing the petitioners that the consignment in question covered by fresh Bill of Entry dated 23.2.2018 will have to be cleared at the rates as applicable on date of filing the Bill of Entry. This is the core controversy in the present writ petition.
5. It was further submitted by Mr. Soparkar that the provisions of Customs Act or Rules does not require the Bills of Entry to be cancelled for getting the IGM amended. The petitioners had requested for amendment of IGM without resorting to the cancellation of Bill of Entry. By cancelling the subject Bill of Entry, the respondent has not only acted beyond the authority granted to them, but have violated principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that numerous Circulars have been issued containing instructions of incorrect and incomplete IGMs. Circular No.45/2005-Customs clarified the issue of major amendments. If the proper officer is satisfied that import manifest is incorrect or incomplete and there was no fraudulent NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4510/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined intention then he may permit to amend or supplement it. Therefore, the adjudication would only arise if there was fraudulent intention. In the present case, the name of the importer is sought to be amended in the IGM. It will not tantamount to major amendment and it should be permitted to be done without adjudication if there is no fraudulent intention. It was further submitted that reason behind amendment of IGM is only on account of commercial reasons. The purpose was to reflect the change in ownership of the goods so as to allow the true owner of the goods to take possession. The amendment in IGM would not result into revenue implications.