Pinnacle Life Science PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that the time limit of three months prescribed in paragraph 3(a) of Circular No. 36/2010-Customs for requesting amendment of shipping bills is illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, does not specify any time period for making such requests. When a statute does not prescribe a time limit, a circular cannot unilaterally impose one, especially when the legislature has explicitly provided time limits in other sections of the Act. The Court found support for this view in the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Messrs Mahalaxmi Rubtech Ltd. vs. Union of India. Consequently, the impugned communication dated December 30, 2021, was quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 was directed to consider the amendment application on its merits, without raising the issue of time limit, and to dispose of the application within six weeks. A personal hearing was to be granted to the petitioner at least seven working days in advance, with a list of any judicial pronouncements the respondent intended to rely on provided to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Pinnacle Life Science Pvt. Ltd., sought to amend six shipping bills to insert Advance Authorization details and convert them from the Drawback Scheme to the Advance Authorization Scheme. The petitioner claimed these omissions were due to clerical errors and were necessary to claim export obligation discharge. Respondent No. 3, the Commissioner of Customs, rejected the amendment application via a letter dated December 30, 2021. The rejection was based on two grounds: the request for five shipping bills was time-barred, citing Circular No. 36/2010-Customs, and for the sixth shipping bill, documentary evidence was not produced. The petitioner contended that all necessary documents were provided and that the time bar imposed by the circular was invalid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the time limit of three months stipulated in Circular No. 36/2010-Customs for requesting amendment of shipping bills is legally valid and enforceable under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, does not prescribe any time limit for making amendments to documents. Therefore, a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) imposing such a time limit is illegal and without jurisdiction. They relied on the principle that where the legislature intends to prescribe a time limit, it does so explicitly in the statute, as seen in other sections of the Act (e.g., Sections 128, 129, 130). They also cited the Gujarat High Court judgment in Messrs Mahalaxmi Rubtech Ltd. vs. Union of India. Revenue's arguments: The respondents relied on Circular No. 36/2010-Customs, which stipulated a three-month period from the Let Export Order (LEO) for conversion requests. They also cited the lack of documentary evidence for the sixth shipping bill as a ground for rejection.