Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 13.07.2026
CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Exportersβ Right to Amend Shipping Bills: Secures RoSCTL Benefits After Scheme Code Mismatch
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Bangalore recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of E-Land Apparel Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru. This case revolved around the amendment of shipping bill scheme codes and the entitlement of exporters to claim benefits under various export incentive schemes. The decision has far-reaching implications for exporters, especially in the textile and apparel sector.
Background of the Case
E-Land Apparel Ltd., a leading manufacturer and exporter of knitted and woven apparel, had exported goods under 211 shipping bills between March 2019 and January 2020. Of these, 67 shipping bills were processed through Bangalore port. Initially, the company declared its intent to claim benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS), as per the prevailing Foreign Trade Policy.
However, with the introduction of the RoSCTL (Rebate of State and Central Taxes and Levies) scheme for the textile sector in March 2019, exporters were required to use a different scheme code (code 60) to claim RoSCTL benefits. E-Land Apparel continued to use the MEIS code due to the lack of clarity and subsequent retrospective withdrawal of MEIS benefits for the apparel sector.
This led to a situation where the company was deprived of both MEIS and RoSCTL benefits, amounting to over Rs. 43.96 lakhs, solely due to a scheme code mismatch.
Legal Arguments
Revenue’s Stand
The Revenue argued that amendments to shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, are permissible only if supported by documentary evidence existing at the time of export.
They cited CBIC Circular No. 36/2010, which prescribed a three-month time limit for such amendments. Since E-Land Apparel requested the amendment well beyond this period, the Revenue contended that the request was not maintainable.
Exporter’s Stand
E-Land Apparel, represented by legal counsel, countered that several High Courts had struck down the three-month limitation as unconstitutional and not legally binding. They referenced multiple judicial precedents, including:
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
- Colossustex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
- Parayil Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
- Lovy International vs. Commissioner of Customs
- Saurabh Overseas Traders vs. Commissioner of Customs
- Arvind Smart Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Furthermore, the company highlighted that the CBIC itself had, in 2025, issued new regulations (Notification No. 21/2025-Customs) properly prescribing time limits via regulations rather than circulars, effectively admitting the earlier method was legally flawed.
Tribunal’s Findings and Decision
The CESTAT bench, after hearing both sides, observed that the issue was already settled by various High Court decisions. The Tribunal noted:
- The three-month time limit imposed by the 2010 circular was not legally enforceable at the time of the amendment request.
- The introduction of proper regulations in 2025 further validated the respondent’s position.
- The Adjudicating Authority had rightly allowed the amendment of the shipping bills, enabling E-Land Apparel to claim RoSCTL benefits.
Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the amendment, allowing E-Land Apparel to receive the export incentives they were substantively entitled to.
Implications for Exporters
This ruling sets a crucial precedent for exporters facing similar issues due to technical errors or retrospective policy changes. Key takeaways include:
- Exporters can seek amendments to shipping bills even after the previously prescribed three-month period, provided there is substantive entitlement and supporting evidence.
- Time limits for such amendments must be prescribed by regulations, not merely by circulars.
- The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural lapses should not deprive exporters of substantive benefits.
Conclusion
The CESTAT Bangalore’s decision in favor of E-Land Apparel Ltd. is a landmark in export incentive jurisprudence. It underscores the importance of fair administrative processes and provides much-needed relief to exporters affected by retrospective policy changes and technical mismatches. Exporters are encouraged to review their shipping bill declarations and, if necessary, seek amendments in light of this judgment.
Connected Matter
Source: CESTAT Bangalore
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379
Leave a Reply