The Calcutta High Court has held that self-assessed bills of entry cannot be cancelled after filing under Customs Act.
The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das while addressing critical questions on the cancellation of self-assessed Bills of Entry under the Customs Act, 1962 has overturned a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruling that had favoured M/s Emami Agrotech Ltd in a high-stakes customs duty case, siding instead with the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata.
The dispute stems from Emami Agrotech’s import of crude palm oil of edible grade in September 2021. The company filed seven “Into-Bond” Bills of Entry for warehousing, followed by ten “Ex-Bond” Bills of Entry for home consumption on September 21 and 28, 2021, involving customs duty of ₹47.82 crore.
On October 8, 2021—days before a government notification slashed the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) from 2.5% to nil and the Agriculture Infrastructure Development Cess (AIDC) from 20% to 7.5%—the company sought to cancel the Ex-Bond Bills and reinstate the Into-Bond Bills, citing depressed sales during the festival season.
Customs department rejected the request, warning of a potential revenue loss of ₹22.25 crore. Although the Calcutta High Court initially allowed provisional release of goods against a 50% cash payment and a bank guarantee, subsequent appeals led the CESTAT to rule in favour of the company.
The Customs Department argued that Section 46(5) of the Customs Act allows only substitution—not cancellation—of a Bill of Entry. Once a self-assessed Bill of Entry for home consumption is accepted without objection, the assessment is final, and the importer must pay duty under Section 15. Cancelling the Bills after filing would enable the importer to take advantage of the reduced duty rates announced shortly thereafter, causing significant revenue loss. No relinquishment of title over the goods was made, which is the only statutory ground for cancellation under Section 68.
The importer contended that Section 46(5) explicitly allows substitution “vice versa” between Bills of Entry for home consumption and warehousing, provided revenue interests are not harmed and there is no fraudulent intent. On October 8, 2021, when the substitution request was made, no duty rate change had yet been announced, so revenue interests were not prejudiced. The request was made within the statutory 90-day period, with supporting evidence from a Chartered Accountant regarding reduced production and sales.
The court held that the Customs Act does not permit withdrawal or cancellation of a self-assessed Bill of Entry for home consumption except when the importer relinquishes title to the goods. Once a self-assessed Bill of Entry is accepted, the importer is bound to pay the applicable duty on the date of its presentation; substitution under Section 46(5) is not intended to undo such final assessments.
The court allowed the cancellation in this case would prejudice revenue interests, given the proximity to the duty rate reduction.
The court held that CESTAT erred by focusing on the absence of a duty rate change on October 8, 2021, rather than the legality of cancelling an already accepted self-assessed Bill of Entry.
The court in a concurring opinion, clarified that the two conditions in Section 46(5) (“revenue not prejudicially affected” and “no fraudulent intention”) should be read disjunctively, giving discretion to the proper officer to refuse substitution if either is not met.
Case Details
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs Port Kolkata Vs. M/S Emami Agrotech Ltd
Case No.: CUSTA 15 OF 2025 GA/2/2025
Date: 31.07.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Adv. and Sr. Std. Counsel Mr. Bijitish Mukherjee, Adv.
Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Dhanuka, Adv. Mr. Niraj Baheti, Adv.
