M/s. Sony India Ltd had sought amendment of its year 2014 & 2015 Bill of Entries to reduce then applicable CVD from 6% to 1% under section 149 & 154 of the Customs Act. Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed Customs authorities to decide the petitioner’s application(s), seeking amendment of the subject BOEs, in accordance with the law. The interesting take away from this case is “there is no limitation prescribed for seeking amendment of the BOEs under the Customs Act, 1962” which is upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
DELHI HIGH COURT
SONY INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
W.P.(C) 9315/2022
Order Dated: - 3-6-2022
Judgment / Order
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Petitioner: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Mr Krishna Rao, Mr Kamal Kumar Arya, Mr Vinayak Mathur, Mr Ankit Sachdeva And Ms Anishka Gupta, Advocates
Respondents: Mr Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Anish Raj, Advocate
ORDER
1. Issue notice.
1.1 Mr Satish Kumar accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2
2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
3. The substantive prayer made in the writ petition reads as follows:
“i. issue a writ, direction or order more specifically in the nature of a “Writ of Mandamus” directing the Respondent to process the applications filed by the Petitioner to amend the Bills of Entries under Section 149 or Section 154 of the Customs Act in a timely and expeditious manner to reflect the rate of tax as 1% as per Sl. No. 263A(ii) of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.”
4. We may note that, according to Mr Kamal Sawhney, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, 150 Bills of Entry (BOEs) for the period spanning between May 2014 and July 2014 were filed with the concerned statutory authority, in which, seemingly, the Countervailing Duty (CVD) was paid at the rate of 6 per cent.
4.1 Likewise, 281 BOEs for the period spanning between August 2014 and January 2015 were also filed with the concerned statutory authority.
5. Mr Kamal Sawhney says that the amendment applications were filed for both sets of BOEs, bearing in mind the notification no. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 [serial no. 263A(ii)].
5.1. It is Mr Sawhney’s submission that as per Sl. No. 263(ii) of the aforementioned notification, the CVD ought to have been paid at 1%.
6. According to Mr Sawhney, there is no limitation prescribed for seeking amendment of the BOEs under the Customs Act, 1962.
6.1. In support of this plea, Mr Sawhney, inter alia, relies upon the following judgments:
(i) Judgement rendered by the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court dated 12.08.2021, in Writ Petition No.4793/2021, titled Sony India Private Limited vs. Union of India.
(ii) Judgement rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 18.01.2021, in Dimension Data India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2021 (376) E.L.T. 192 (Bom.)
7. Given this position, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner’s application(s), seeking amendment of the subject BOEs, in accordance with the law.
************
