Circulars cannot impose time limits on shipping bill amendments permitted under Section 149.

The respondent, an exporter of cashew kernels, applied for Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) licenses from the DGFT for raw cashew nuts

While filing the shipping bills through a Customs Broker, the respondent inadvertently entered code "00" (pertaining to free shipping bills) instead of code "26" (pertaining to the DFIA scheme)

Following the completion of the export, the respondent requested an amendment of the shipping bills on 26.12.2018 to reflect the DFIA scheme

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the request on 31.12.2018, citing a three-month time limit and specific examination norms prescribed under Circular No. 36/2010

This rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) but subsequently set aside by the CESTAT, Chennai, which permitted the amendment

The Department appealed to the High Court

1. Whether the CESTAT was correct in disregarding the three-month time limit and examination norms prescribed by Circular No. 36/2010 for the conversion of shipping bill schemes

2. Whether a request for conversion/amendment of a shipping bill from free export to a beneficial scheme like DFIA can be entertained under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, after the goods have already been exported and were not subjected to physical examination

3. Whether the amendment sought constitutes a "conversion" of schemes or merely a correction of a clerical error based on documentary evidence existing at the time of export

Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which governs the amendment of documents but does not prescribe a specific time limit for such requests

a departmental circular (Circular No. 36/2010) cannot override or restrict a substantive statutory provision by imposing a limitation period not found in the Act

CC v. Diamond Engineering (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. (2019)

Commissioner of Customs v. N.C. John and Sons P. Ltd. (2020), which established that inadvertent clerical errors in shipping bill codes can be corrected under Section 149 if supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence.

The Department contended that because code "00" involves no scrutiny while code "26" requires specific examination, allowing an amendment after export denies the Revenue the chance to verify the goods

The Court observed that the respondent had already obtained DFIA file numbers from the DGFT prior to export, and these details were reflected in the shipment records

The Court reasoned that this was not a case of an exporter belatedly choosing a more beneficial scheme, but a clerical error where the intent to export under DFIA was evidenced by documents existing at the time of export

Regarding the three-month limitation in Circular 36/2010, the Court held it was legally unsustainable as it sought to curtail the substantive right of amendment granted under Section 149, which contains no such time bar

The Court concluded that the lack of physical examination of the consignment does not automatically bar an amendment if the underlying nature of the transaction is proved by other documentary evidence

The Court held that the respondent was entitled to amend the shipping bills from code "00" to "26" under Section 149 of the Customs Act, as the error was inadvertent and supported by pre-existing DFIA authorizations

It further held that statutory provisions prevail over restrictive circulars regarding limitation periods

All substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue