consignment is concerned during the relevant time, there was no provision for physical examination of the cargo exported from SEZ unit under MEIS Scheme and that requirement was incorporated only on 19.09.2018 vide Notification G.S.R. No. 909 (E) dated 19.09.2018. Further, I find that the entire export took place prior to incorporation of the physical examination requirement. Further, I find that in the case of SEZ, the entire operations are under the control of Development Commissioner and the officers of the Customs posted therein and they can easily verify the entire records but the same was not done in this case. Further, I find that in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, amendment of Shipping Bills for the declaration of MEIS is clearly covered in favour of the assessee. Moreover, the appellant has also produced one NOC vide which amendment of Shipping Bills was allowed on identical facts. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by various decisions cited supra, I am of the considered view that the impugned order denying the amendment of the Shipping Bills is not sustainable in law and therefore I set aside the same and direct the respondent to carry out the amendment in the Shipping Bills. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”
