Section 149 permits post-export shipping bill amendments without statutory limitation, subject to contemporaneous documentary evidence.

M/s Vishnu Barium Pvt. Ltd. exported Barium Carbonate under 59 shipping bills during Financial Years 2017–18 to 2019–20. In the electronic shipping bills, the MEIS reward option was marked “NO”.

The respondent subsequently sought amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, to change the declaration from “NO” to “YES”, through letters dated 22 February 2021 and 8 September 2021, so that it could pursue MEIS benefits.

After an earlier rejection and remand by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Deputy Commissioner again rejected the request by order dated 12 January 2023. The Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, allowed the respondent’s appeal on 9 August 2023, holding, inter alia, that Section 149, as applicable during the relevant period, prescribed no limitation period for such amendment.

The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was below the monetary threshold prescribed for departmental appeals; the total alleged MEIS entitlement was stated to be ₹47,19,103.

1. Whether the Revenue’s appeal was maintainable in view of the monetary-limit instructions issued under Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Whether the respondent could amend the 59 shipping bills under Section 149 by changing the MEIS declaration from “NO” to “YES” after export, particularly where the exports occurred before the subsequent introduction of a one-year limitation period.

3. Whether repeated “NO” declarations over approximately three years, the alleged creation of a fresh fiscal entitlement, and the delay in seeking amendment barred the exercise of power under Section 149.

Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers the proper officer, in his discretion, to permit amendment of a document presented in the Customs House; for goods already exported, the proviso requires documentary evidence that was in existence at the time of export.

During the relevant export period, Section 149 did not prescribe a specific limitation period, and a subsequently introduced limitation cannot be applied retrospectively in the absence of express legislative intent.

Section 131BA authorises the Board to prescribe monetary limits for departmental appeals, and the Board’s instruction dated 2 November 2023 prescribed ₹50,00,000 as the threshold for appeals before the CESTAT in customs matters, subject to specified exceptions.

The principles in Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., (2018) 9 SCC 1, require strict construction of fiscal exemption or incentive provisions; Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (2004) 9 SCC 433, and ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2019) 17 SCC 46, concern the legal consequences of assessments or self-assessments, but do not eliminate the independent statutory power of amendment under Section 149.

The Tribunal first held that the appeal fell below the prescribed monetary threshold. No customs duty, interest, fine, or penalty was involved; even if the entire MEIS entitlement of ₹47,19,103 was treated as the amount in dispute, it remained below ₹50,00,000. Revenue also failed to establish that the case fell within any exception to the monetary-limit policy.

On merits, the Tribunal held that Section 149 expressly contemplates post-export amendment, subject to contemporaneous documentary evidence. The repeated “NO” declarations were relevant to assessing whether the amendment should be permitted, but were not conclusive by themselves.

Amendment of the shipping bills was not equivalent to granting MEIS benefits; it merely enabled the respondent to place the amended documents before the competent authority, which would independently determine eligibility under the applicable MEIS scheme and Foreign Trade Policy.

Since no limitation period applied under Section 149 during the relevant export period, the subsequent one-year restriction could not operate as a retrospective jurisdictional bar, although delay could be considered while assessing the reliability of the contemporaneous evidence and exercising discretion.

In the alternative, it dismissed the appeal on merits, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order permitting amendment of the 59 shipping bills under Section 149.

The Tribunal clarified that the amendment did not itself confer MEIS entitlement; the respondent’s eligibility for the incentive remained subject to determination by the competent authority under the applicable statutory and scheme requirements.