High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2022-11-08Appeals dismissed

Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Cochin v LMJ International Ltd; Universal Oleoresins; MRF Limited; Kancor Ingredients Ltd; RBG Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. V. Bhatti
Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2022-11-08
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals dismissed; the High Court upholds the CESTAT orders and the Tribunal’s allowance of amendments to shipping bills for MEIS eligibility.
Final Disposition: Appeals dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Cochin

Respondents

LMJ International Ltd.
Universal Oleoresins
MRF Limited
Kancor Ingredients Ltd.
RBG Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P.R. Sreejith, SC, Central Board of Excise and Customs

Counsels for Respondents

• P.A. Augustian
• Swathy E.S.
• M. Balagopal
• R. Devika
• Gopikrishnan Nambiar
• M. John Mathai
• Joson Manavalan
• Kuryan Thomas
• Pauloose C. Abraham
• Raja Kannan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of Customs Appeals, filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenges orders of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, allowing amendments in shipping bills to claim MEIS (Mechant Export from India Scheme) benefits. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench judgment by Justices S.V. Bhatti and Basant Balaji, examines five appeals: Cus. Appeals Nos. 9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, and 2/2022, relating to LMJ International Ltd., Universal Oleoresins, MRF Limited, Kancor Ingredients Ltd., and RBG Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The respondents had claimed MEIS benefits and sought amendments to shipping bills where the MEIS declaration appeared as ‘N’ in the reward column, which the Tribunal treated as a procedural defect and allowed amendment to ‘Y’. The Revenue objected, arguing amendments could not be made where declarations were not properly formatted. The Court notes consistent authority supporting amendments (Madras High Court in Pasha International; Delhi High Court in Kedia Agencies; Kerala High Court in Mangalath Cashews; NC John & Sons; Kuruwa Enterprises) and a Supreme Court SLP (No.5334/2022) confirming the view in Customs Appeal No.5/2020. Following these authorities, the Court dismisses the batch, upholding the Tribunal’s permissive approach to amendment and MEIS eligibility. The outcome is that MEIS amendments are permissible, and the revenue appeals fail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Revenue contends that MEIS amendments to shipping bills cannot be entertained where the declaration of intention to claim MEIS is defective or where the policy requires a specific declaration. It seeks to uphold the authorities’ rejection of amendment, arguing that a mere procedural lapse cannot be cured by amendment and that the Tribunal’s permissive stance undermines policy safeguards and the integrity of shipping bill disclosures.

Contentions of Respondents

The exporters maintain that their declarations of intent to claim MEIS were present in the shipping bills and the sole flaw was the reward column showing ‘N’ instead of ‘Y’. They argue this is a purely procedural defect and amendments have been consistently allowed in similar circumstances by multiple tribunals and courts (including NC John & Sons, Kuruwa Enterprises, and Mangalath Cashews), as well as Madras and Delhi High Courts, and that the Supreme Court has affirmed these view through related proceedings. They request amendment and MEIS eligibility to be sanctioned.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pasha International	—	Positive	Cited as supporting the permissibility of amending shipping bills to enable MEIS eligibility.
Kedia Agencies Pvt. Ltd.	—	Positive	Cited as supportive authority for permitting amendments affecting MEIS claims.
M/s. N.C. John & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin	Final Order No.20909/2019 (28.10.2019)	Positive	Tribunal decisions cited in issue of amendments; supportive authority.
M/s. Kuruwa Enterprises & Ors. v. CC, Cochin	Final Order No.21021621018/2019 (19.11.2019)	Positive	Tribunal decision cited as supportive for amendments.
Mangalath Cashews & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin	—	Positive	Kerala High Court decision cited to support amendment approach.
S.L.P. No. 5334/2022	04.04.2022	Positive	Supreme Court confirmation affecting the view on amendments.
Customs Appeal No.5/2020	—	Positive	View referred to as the leading position later confirmed by Supreme Court.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Cochin v LMJ International Ltd; Universal Oleoresins; MRF Limited; Kancor Ingredients Ltd; RBG Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI** **TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944** **CUS.APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.C/20984/2019 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE &** **SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE** **APPELLANT:** **COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN-682009.** **BY ADV SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS** **RESPONDENT:** **M/S.LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD. 24/104 PERUMANOOR JETTY ROAD, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682003.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SMT.SWATHY E.S.** **THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.10/2020, 2/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI** **TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944** ## **CUS.APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.C/20932/2019 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE &** **SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE** ## **APPELLANT:** **COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE,COCHIN-682009.** **BY ADV SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS** ## **RESPONDENT:** **UNIVERSAL OLEORESINS VIII/946,NAVARATNA HOUSE, JAWAHAR ROAD, COCHIN-682002.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.BALAGOPAL SMT.R.DEVIKA (ALAPPUZHA)** **THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -3- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI** **TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944** ## **CUS.APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.C/20931/2019 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE &** **SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE** ## **APPELLANT:** **COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN-682009.** **BY ADV SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS** **RESPONDENT:** **RBG TRADING CORPORATION PVT. LTD. VI/93 JEW TOWN, KOCHI-682002, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022,** **ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -4- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI** **TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944** ## **CUS.APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.C/20007/2020 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE** ## **APPELLANT:** **COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN 682 009.** **BY ADV SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS** **RESPONDENT:** **KANCORE INGREDIENTS LIMITED NO. VII/138, KANAKKANKADAVU ROAD, ANGAMALI SOUTH, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 683 573, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022,** **ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -5- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI** **TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944** ## **CUS.APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 21034/2019 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE& SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE** **APPELLANT:** **COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN 682 009.KERALA.** **BY ADV SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS** **RESPONDENT:** **MRF LTD REGD. OFFICE 114 (OLD NO. 124), GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI 600 006,** **TAMILNADU, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER.,** **BY ADVS. Gopikrishnan Nambiar M K.JOHN MATHAI(J-212) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)** **THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022,** **ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -6- ## **JUDGMENT** [Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022] ## S.V.Bhatti, J. Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Cochin/Revenue is the appellant in the batch of appeals filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the orders of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT) Regional Bench, Bangalore (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The respondents/exporters though are distinct entities, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment since the issues are identical in all the appeals. The details of the exporters and the orders against which the appeals are filed are stated thus: |Sl. No.|Respondent / Exporter|Order of Commissioner of Customs|Order of the Tribunal|Customs Appeal No.| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|M/s. LMJ International Ltd|COC-CUSTOMS- 000-COM- 16/2019-20|21021/2019|09/2020| |2|Universal Oleoresins|COC-CUSTOMS- 000-COM-|21016-21018/2019|10/2020| Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -7- |||21/2019-20||| |---|---|---|---|---| |3|MRF Limited|COC-CUSTOMS- 000-COM- 22/2019-20|20071/2021|2/2021| |4|Kancor Ingredients Ltd|COC-CUSTOMS- 000-COM- 15/2019-20|20071/2020|3/2021| |5|RBG Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd|COC-CUSTOMS- 000-COM- 20/2019-20|21016-21018/2029|2/2021| 2. The respondents have exported a few products as detailed in respective Appellate orders of the Tribunal. The respondents to claim the benefit of MEIS Scheme and correct an inadvertent mistake that happened during electronically filling up the shipping bills, requested for amendment of one of the fields in the templates provided for in this behalf. The column deals with declaring the intention to claim MEIS benefit, the exporters have to tick the box having ‘Y’. In the cases on hand, whether have not answered or alternatively the exporters have ticked the box shown against ‘N’. The exporters, it is alleged, Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -8- satisfied all the requirements for availing scrip benefit under MEIS. The request of exporters was rejected by the Primary and Appellate Authorities. The Tribunal, through the orders impugned in the appeals, allowed and for illustrative purposes, we excerpt para 6 in the order of Tribunal No.21021/2019 dated 21.11.2019 marked as Annexure- 1 in Customs Appeal no. 9/2020: “6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner has failed to notice that the appellant has declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits in all the shipping bills which have been produced on record. The only lapse on the part of the appellant was that they have mentioned in the reward column as 'N' instead of 'Y', which is only a procedural defect. Further, I find that otherwise the appellant is entitled to claim MEIS benefit as per the export policy. Failure to mention 'Y' in the reward column of the shipping bill for availing the benefit under MEIS scheme can be corrected by amending the shipping bill as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of _**Pasha International**_ cited supra. Further, T find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of _**Kedia (Agencies) Pvt.**_ **Ltd** . (supra) has also allowed the amendment even in a situation where there was no declaration of intention whereas in the present case, the appellant has made the declaration on the front page of the shipping bills regarding their intention to claim the MEIS benefit. Further, I find that the other ports have allowed the amendment of shipping bill in identical situation. I also find that the issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** decisions of this Tribunal rendered in the case of **M/s. N.C. John & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin vide Final Order No.20909/2019 dated 28.10.2019 and M/s. Kuruwa Enterprises & Ors. vs. CC, Cochin vide Final Order No.21021621018/2019 dated 19.11.2019** and by the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of **Mangalath Cashews & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin** . In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered view that rejection of request for amendment of shipping bill by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law and therefore, I set aside the impugned order and direct the Custom Authorities to allow the amendment in the shipping bill as per the request of the appellant on production of certified copy of this order. Appeal is accordingly allowed.” 3. The learned counsel appearing for the parties invited our attention to the view taken by this Court in Customs Appeal No.5/2020 filed by the Revenue challenging a view identical to the case on hand, having been taken by the Tribunal in appeal No.C/20761/2019. Our attention is also invited to the order of the Supreme Court dated 04.04.2022 in SLP No.5334/2022 filed against Customs Appeal No.5/2020. We take note of the said orders and are of the view that the issues raised in the instant batch of appeals are covered by the Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -10- decisions referred to above. Hence, by following the view taken in the order dated 27.07.2020 in Customs Appeal No.5/2020 as confirmed by the Supreme Court, the appeals stand dismissed. **S.V.BHATTI JUDGE** **BASANT BALAJI JUDGE** JS Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -11- ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 9/2020** **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** ## **ANNEXURE-1** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO.21021/2019 DATED 21.11.2019 IN APPEAL NO.C/20984/2019 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CESTAT) REGIONAL BENCH, BANGLORE.** **ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN -ORIGINAL NO COC CUSTOMS -OOO-COM-16/2019-20 DATED 20.07.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN.** Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -12- ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 10/2020** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF COMMON FINAL ORDER NO.21016/21018/2019 DATED 19-11-2019 IN APPEAL NO.C/20932/2019 OF CUSTOMS,EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CESTAT),REGIONAL BENCH,BANGALORE.** **ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO.COCCUSTOMS-000-COM-21/2019-20 DATED 20.7.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,CUTSOMS HOUSE,COCHIN.** Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -13- ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 2/2021** **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE 1** **CERTIFIED COPY OF COMMON FINAL ORDER NO.21016-21018/2019 DATED 19.11.2019 IN APPEAL NO.C/20931/2019-SM OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CESTAT), REGIONAL BENCH, BANGALORE.** **ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO.COCCUSTOMS-OOO-COM-20/2019-20 DATED 20.7.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN.** Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -14- ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 3/2021** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** ## **ANNEXURE 1** **CERTIFIED C COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO. 20071/2020 DATED 28.01.2020 IN APPEAL NO. 20007/2020 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CESTAT), REGIONAL BENCH, BANGALORE.** **ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO. COC CUSTOMS OOO-COM-15/2019-20 DATED 20.7.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN.** Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 -15- ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 2/2022** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL ORDER NO. 20071/2021 DATED 12/03/2021 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 21034 OF 2019 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CESTAT), REGIONAL BENCH, BANGALORE.** **Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO. 22/201920 DATED 20/07/2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN.,**