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

In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam - Cus.Appeal Nos. 9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022

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: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 disposed of. The Kerala High Court dismisses the Revenue’s batch appeals, holding that the issues are covered by earlier decisions and that the CESTAT’s orders permitting MEIS amendments are set aside. The MEIS amendment requests are not permitted in these cases, and the Tribunal’s favorable orders are reversed in light of the cited precedents and the Supreme Court’s guidance.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of; revenue appeals dismissed; CEStat orders allowing amendments set aside; MEIS amendment requests not permitted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Cochin-682009

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

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

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch judgment of the Kerala High Court consolidates five Customs Appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, arising from CESTAT Bangalore and CESTAT Regional Bench, Bangalore/Coimbatore orders. The Revenue (Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Cochin) challenges CESTAT orders that allowed amendments in MEIS shipping-bill declarations for five exporters: LMJ International Ltd; Universal Oleoresins; MRF Limited; Kancor Ingredients Ltd; and RBG Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The core issue is whether an inadvertent negative declaration in the MEIS reward column of the shipping bill can be corrected to a positive declaration to obtain MEIS benefits, and whether the authorities’ rejection of such amendments is legally sustainable. The Tribunal had allowed the amendments, relying on several precedents (M/s. N.C. John & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin; M/s. Kuruwa Enterprises & Ors. vs. CC, Cochin) and other authorities (Hon’ble Madras High Court in Pasha International; Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Kedia (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd.), as well as a Supreme Court SLP dated 04.04.2022. The Kerala High Court holds that the issues are covered by these decisions and, following the view in Customs Appeal No.5/2020 as confirmed by the Supreme Court, dismisses the batch appeals. Consequently, the CESTAT’s orders permitting amendments are set aside, and MEIS amendment requests are not permitted in these cases. The common judgment thus disposes of the batch on identical reasoning.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants (Revenue) contend that MEIS eligibility requires strict compliance with declared declarations in shipping bills. They challenge the Tribunal’s permissive approach to amend the MEIS-related fields, arguing that such amendments are not sustainable absent clear legal provision or binding precedent. They rely on the chain of precedents cited in the judgment (Pasha International; Kedia; N.C. John & Sons; Kuruwa Enterprises; Mangalath Cashews) and the Supreme Court’s 04.04.2022 SLP order to urge that the MEIS amendment should be disallowed where the declaration process was not consistently adhered to in the original bills, maintaining that the CESTAT erred in treating the discrepancy as a mere procedural defect.

Contentions of Respondents

The exporters contend that the mis-declaration in MEIS reward fields is a clerical or procedural defect that should be corrected to reflect an intention to claim MEIS benefits. They rely on tribunal precedents (NC John & Sons; Kuruwa Enterprises; Mangalath Cashews; related Madras/Delhi High Court rulings) and the Supreme Court’s guidance to permit amendments, asserting that rejection would frustrate policy objectives and that the front-page declaration, along with other records, substantiates eligibility.

Cited Precedents (8)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
M/s. N.C. John & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin	Final Order No.20909/2019	Positive	Cited to support allowing MEIS shipping-bill amendments.
M/s. Kuruwa Enterprises & Ors. vs. CC, Cochin	Final Order No.21021621018/2019	Positive	Cited to support amendment approach.
Mangalath Cashews & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin	—	Positive	Cited as supportive Kerala High Court decision on amendments.
Pasha International	—	Positive	Cited as Madras High Court authority on amendment of shipping bills.
Kedia (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd.	—	Positive	Cited as authority on amendments even where declaration existed or not.
Kedia (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)	—	Mentioned Only	Mentioned to corroborate Kedia reference but not directly applied in this judgment.
Hon’ble Madras High Court in Pasha International	—	Mentioned Only	Referenced as supportive authority.
Supreme Court, SLP No. 5334/2022	04.04.2022	Positive	Supreme Court order cited as supportive for the view that issues are covered by earlier decisions.

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 In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam - Cus.Appeal Nos. 9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022 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.,**