2017 (1) TMI 1487 - AT - Customs

Conversion of shipping bills - free shipping bills into advance licence/DEPB/DFRC/Drawback shipping bills - Board s Circular No. 6/2003-Cus., dated 28-1-2003 - Circular No. 40/2003-Cus., dated 12-5-2003 - Held that - the appellant has not produced any documents, evidence in export of fulfilment of the above conditions for consideration of the case for conversion thereof - the application for conversion being filed after about three years, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Customs - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conversion of Free Shipping Bills into advance licence/DEPB/DFRC/Drawback shipping bills.
2. Interpretation of circulars issued by the Board regarding conversion criteria.
3. Sufficiency of evidence provided by the appellant for conversion.
4. Timeliness of the application for conversion.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Conversion of Free Shipping Bills
The case involved the conversion of Free Shipping Bills for the export of Jute items into advance licence/DEPB/DFRC/Drawback shipping bills. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had filed an application for conversion after a significant period. The Commissioner of Customs (Port) disallowed the application in de novo proceedings. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, upheld the decision of the Commissioner, stating that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence for the conversion.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Circulars
The appellants relied on Circular No. 6/2003-Cus. and Circular No. 40/2003-Cus. issued by the Board to support their case for conversion. The Circular dated 12-5-2003 clarified that conversion could be allowed by the Commissioner on a case-to-case basis, subject to specific conditions outlined in Circular dated 28-1-2003. These conditions included proving the use of inputs in the export product, compliance with export scheme conditions, and fulfilling all eligibility criteria. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not meet these conditions, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

Issue 3: Sufficiency of Evidence
The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant failed to produce any documents or evidence to demonstrate the fulfillment of the conditions specified in the Circulars for conversion. The lack of supporting documentation regarding the export and compliance with scheme requirements contributed to the decision to uphold the Commissioner's order disallowing the conversion.

Issue 4: Timeliness of Application
An additional aspect considered was the timing of the application for conversion, which was filed approximately three years after the initial Free Shipping Bills were submitted. The Tribunal took note of this delay and, in conjunction with the lack of supporting evidence, concluded that there was no valid reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants and upheld the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, emphasizing the importance of providing adequate evidence and meeting the specified conditions for conversion as per the Circulars issued by the Board.