Rajasthan HC upholds CESTAT order allowing amendment of Bill of Entry under Section 149 of Customs Act

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that there is no statutory embargo under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 on allowing amendment of a Bill of Entry merely because a search has been conducted by the department. The Court recorded that the object of Section 149 is to ensure proper assessment of duty and that amendments can be permitted even after clearance of goods, provided the request is supported by documentary evidence which was in existence at the relevant time.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Acting Chief Justice, and Justice Sangeeta Sharma recorded that the discretion vested in the proper officer under Section 149 of the Act to authorise amendment of documents has to be exercised reasonably and in a manner that facilitates smooth conduct of business, and that such discretion cannot be curtailed solely on the ground that the mis-declaration came to light during a search.

These observations were made while dismissing a customs appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jaipur, challenging the order dated February 29, 2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, which had allowed amendment of the Bill of Entry in favour of Ceramic Tableware Pvt. Ltd.

The case arose from import of Calcium Phosphate by the respondent-company, which is engaged in manufacture of tableware and crockery. The goods were declared under a particular HSN classification in the Bills of Entry and were cleared by the Customs authorities. Subsequently, a search operation was conducted on November 26, 2020, during which the respondent accepted that there had been a mis-declaration of the HSN Code due to a clerical error and agreed to pay the differential duty, which was deposited by applying the correct classification.

The respondent thereafter filed an application under Section 149 of the Customs Act seeking amendment of the Bills of Entry. The adjudicating authority rejected the application on the ground that Section 149 would apply only if the mis-declaration had been revealed suo motu and not after a search conducted by the department.

On appeal, the CESTAT set aside the rejection and held that the respondent was entitled to seek amendment of the Bills of Entry under Section 149. The Tribunal relied upon judicial precedents, including the decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, wherein it was held that Section 149 can be invoked so long as the amendment is based on documentary evidence which existed at the time of clearance of goods.

Before the High Court, the Customs department contended that once a search had been conducted and mis-declaration detected, amendment under Section 149 ought not to have been permitted. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that neither the text of Section 149 nor the scheme of the Act places any such restriction.

The Court further recorded that even if the Bills of Entry were initially filed with an incorrect classification and clearance was granted by the Customs authority, corrections could still be made subsequently. The Bench held that whether the amendment is sought suo motu or pursuant to advice or detection by the department, the power under Section 149 remains available, and the purpose of the provision is to arrive at correct assessment of duty.

Finding that the view taken by the CESTAT was in consonance with the provisions of the Customs Act and supported by binding precedents, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The customs appeal was accordingly dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.

Case Title
The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jaipur vs Ceramic Tableware Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number
D.B. Customs Appeal No. 7/2024

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench

Bench
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma (Acting Chief Justice)
Justice Sangeeta Sharma

Date of Order
February 3, 2026

Advocates
For the appellant: Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sinha
For the respondent: None appeared