2011 (4) TMI 13 - HC - Customs

U/s 130 - Permission to amend their DEEC/DEPB shipping bills into those DEEC/DEPB cum drawback scheme - The claim of the exporter was for Amendment of the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Act - As per proviso of Section 149, no amendment of a shipping bill was to be allowed after the export goods have been exported except on the basis of the documentary evidence, which was in existence at the time the goods were exported - It is thus clear that amendment of shipping bill is not to be allowed in a routine manner after the export goods have been exported - For enabling an exporter to draw the benefits of any scheme, not only physical verification of documents would be required, but as is noted that the verification of the goods of export as also their examination by the Customs was necessarily required to be done Hence , the Commissioner in rejecting the request of the exporter of conversion/amendment from one scheme to the other after a lapse of more than one year The appeal is dismissed against the assessee/exporter.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act against CESTAT's order, Request for amendment of shipping bills from one export promotion scheme to another, Discretionary power of proper officer to authorize document amendment, Interpretation of Section 149 of the Customs Act, Application of Board's circular No.4/2004 on conversion of shipping bills, Examination of documentary evidence for amendment post-export.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act against the order of CESTAT dated 11.11.2009, concerning the amendment of shipping bills from one export promotion scheme to another. The appellant, a manufacturer of c-extruded multilayer film, exported goods under the DEPB/DEEC scheme and later sought to convert them into the drawback scheme. The Commissioner rejected this request, citing Section 149 of the Act, which allows amendment based on existing documentary evidence post-export.

The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the power to authorize document amendment is discretionary and not a matter of right for importers/exporters. The Board's circular No.4/2004 outlined guidelines on conversion of shipping bills, restricting routine conversions and allowing them only in specific circumstances where benefits were denied by authorities. The case highlighted the importance of documentary evidence and the challenges posed by late requests for conversion.

The Court analyzed Section 149 of the Act, which permits amendment of documents at the discretion of the proper officer, subject to existing documentary evidence post-export. The Commissioner's refusal to allow conversion/amendment after a significant period post-export was deemed justified, considering the complexities involved in verifying goods and documents. The distinction between amendment and conversion was crucial, as converting schemes entailed a change in the document's status and character, necessitating thorough verification processes.

Ultimately, the Court found no legal error in the Commissioner's decision to reject the request for conversion/amendment, given the factual circumstances and the absence of a legal question. The appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and guidelines while considering requests for document amendments in customs matters.