9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 847 - AT - CustomsConversion of shipping bills - DEEC to drawback scheme - Board s Circular No. 4/2004-Cus. - Held that - The Board s circular contains some clarification with regard to conversion of free Shipping Bill to drawback Shipping Bill. Though the circular, at the outset, states that any such conversion cannot be allowed, it takes note of Rule 12(i)(a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 and holds the view that it is open to the Commissioner to examine and consider individual request on merits in terms of the above rule. An exporter, who files a shipping bill under a DEEC Scheme, is required to furnish such particulars and make such declaration as may be necessary for the proper officer of Customs to consider grant of export benefit. Similarly an exporter who files a DEPB shipping bill also has to undergo the ordeal of furnishing extra materials and making declarations to the satisfaction of the proper officer of Customs so as to enable that officer to consider grant of the export benefit. These ordeals are not there in the case of an exporter who files a free shipping bill. Considering the matter from this angle, we think that conversion of a shipping bill from any export promotion scheme to another like the drawback scheme should be easier than one from free to drawback scheme. Therefore, it must be possible for the Commissioner of Customs to decide afresh, in the light of the principles laid down in the Board s circular, the question of conversion asked for by the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Consideration of conversion of Shipping Bills from DEEC to drawback scheme under Board's Circular. 2. Interpretation of Rule 12(i)(a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995. 3. Examination of practical difficulties in verifying declared particulars for conversion of shipping bills between export promotion schemes. Issue 1: The appeal was taken up following the High Court's remand order, directing detailed consideration of the appellant's request for conversion of Shipping Bills from the DEEC scheme to the drawback scheme. The appellant had filed Shipping Bills under the DEEC Scheme for export but did not receive the expected benefits. The appellant sought conversion based on Board's Circular No. 4/2004-Cus. The appellant argued that all necessary details were provided in the Shipping Bills and verified by Customs officers. The Jt. CDR contended that the DEEC benefit was already granted, making conversion unnecessary. The Tribunal noted the open remand and the need to consider the conversion request under the Board's Circular, ultimately setting aside the Commissioner's order and remanding the case for a fresh decision. Issue 2: The Jt. CDR referred to Rule 12(i)(a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995, which outlines the procedure for exporters claiming drawback. The rule mandates specific declarations and details on the Shipping Bill for drawback claims. The proviso under Rule 12(1)(a) empowers the Commissioner to exempt exporters from certain declarations under exceptional circumstances. The Board's Circular addressed the conversion of free Shipping Bills to drawback Bills under this rule, leaving it to the Commissioner's discretion. The Tribunal analyzed the rule's provisions and the Commissioner's authority to consider conversion requests based on individual merits. Issue 3: The practical difficulties in verifying declared particulars for conversion between export promotion schemes were discussed. The Board's Circular highlighted the disparities in requirements for different types of Shipping Bills, emphasizing the ease of conversion from special schemes to the drawback scheme compared to free Shipping Bills. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for the Commissioner to assess conversion requests in line with the Circular and relevant legal provisions. The decision to remand the case was made to ensure a fair consideration of the appellant's request and compliance with the High Court's remand order, allowing for a fresh decision by the Commissioner after hearing both parties and considering judicial precedents if presented.
|
