High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2022-11-08Appeals disposed of; revenue appeals dismissed;...

Cus.Appeal batch: 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

Neutral Citation:/

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 followed the view in Customs Appeal No.5/2020 as confirmed by the Supreme Court, and upheld CESTAT’s allowance of MEIS amendments.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of; revenue appeals dismissed; MEIS amendments allowed and Tribunal orders sustained.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Cochin

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

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

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch judgment consolidates five Customs Appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs, challenging CESTAT orders that allowed amendments in shipping bills to enable MEIS (Merchandise Exports from India Scheme) benefits. The appellants (revenues) contend that the MEIS amendment should be refused where the declaration of intention to claim MEIS was not properly made, or where the alleged procedural lapses cannot be cured. The respondents/exporters—LMJ International Ltd., Universal Oleoresins, MRF Limited, Kancor Ingredients Ltd., and RBG Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd.—had sought correction of an inadvertent “N” for “Y” in the MEIS declaration field on the shipping bills, arguing this was a procedural defect and that they were otherwise eligible for MEIS. The Tribunal’s orders had allowed amendments, relying on decisions of various courts (e.g., Pasha International; Kedia Agencies) and CESTAT rulings (N.C. John & Sons; Kuruwa Enterprises) that such amendments can be permitted. The Kerala High Court, noting the consistency of this reasoning across decisions, followed Customs Appeal No.5/2020 and the Supreme Court’s confirmation, and dismissed all appeals, thereby upholding the Tribunal’s approach and allowing the MEIS amendments. The batch judgment thus closes with the appeals being disposed of in favor of the respondents.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Revenue contends that the MEIS amendment should be refused as the shipping bills did not properly reflect an intention to claim MEIS; it treats the front-page declaration and the N/Y discrepancy as substantive, not curable by mere amendment; relies on the need for strict adherence to documentary requirements.

Contentions of Respondents

The exporters contend that they declared an intention to claim MEIS in all shipping bills; the only lapse was marking the reward column as 'N' instead of 'Y', a procedural defect that should be curable by amendment, as repeatedly recognised by other tribunals and courts, including Pasha International and Kedia Agencies; several CESTAT and High Court decisions support amendment even where there was no explicit declaration, and that rejection is not sustainable.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pasha International	—	Positive	Madras High Court decision cited to support amendment of shipping bills; indicates allowances of MEIS amendments for procedural corrections.
Kedia (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd.	—	Positive	Delhi High Court decision cited showing amendment allowed even where there was no declaration of intention, aligning with the current view.
M/s. N.C. John & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin	Final Order No.20909/2019 dated 28.10.2019	Positive	CESTAT decision cited in support of amendment.
M/s. Kuruwa Enterprises & Ors. vs. CC, Cochin	Final Order No.21021621018/2019 dated 19.11.2019	Positive	CESTAT decision cited in support of amendment.
Mangalath Cashews & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin	—	Positive	Kerala High Court decision cited as supportive authority for amendments.
Customs Appeal No.5/2020	—	Positive	Foundational decision followed by the High Court and Supreme Court confirmation.
S.L.P. No. 5334/2022	SLP No.5334/2022	Positive	Supreme Court order dated 04.04.2022 confirmed the decision context.

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 Cus.Appeal batch: 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.,**