mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.50 OF 2009 Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Customs ..Respondent Mr. Majoj Sanklecha i/b. Motiwalla & Co., for the Appellant. Mr. R.V. Desai with Mr. Rohit Pardeshi, for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 17TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. The Appellant has raised various questions in paragraph 3 of the appeal memo. We do not, however, propose to frame those various questions and answer the same in view of the limited nature of the controversy. 2. The consignee in the present case is the same. The goods were loaded on a ship. There were two Bills of Lading. The agent while filling the IGM included only one Bill of Lading according to them and by mistake did not include the other Bill of Lading. They accordingly made an application for amendment of the IGM. 3. In the meantime the proceedings were started against the appellant. The A.O. By the impugned order imposed fine and penalty. The Appellant herein preferred an appeal. It was contended by the appellant as one of the grounds that they applied for amendment of the IGM and no finding has been recorded that the amendment sought was with fraudulent intention. The Tribunal did not answer the said issue. 4. In our opinion considering that the A.O., has to first consider the application for amendment of the IGM and thereafter to proceed to pass an order of assessment. Under these circumstances both the orders of the Appellate Tribunal as also of the A.O., are set aside. The matter is restored to file of the A.O. The A.O. To first consider the application for amendment of the IGM moved by the appellant herein and thereafter to proceed to pass order according to law. Appeal disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)