9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 75 - AT - CustomsDEPB Scheme - The cancellation letter which has been issued recently was obviously not before the authorities below when they have passed the impugned orders - Neither the Authorized Officer who has issued the initial letter of rejection nor the lower appellate authority who has passed the impugned Order-in-Appeal were authorized under the said circular dated 16.1.2004 to deal with a case of conversion of Shipping Bills from one export promotion scheme to another export promotion scheme - The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand
Issues: Request for conversion of Shipping Bills from DFIA Scheme to DEPB Scheme
In this judgment, the primary issue revolves around the rejection of the appellants' request for the conversion of over 2000 Shipping Bills from the DFIA Scheme to the DEPB Scheme. The rejection was based on the decision of an Authorized Officer, which was upheld by the lower appellate authority, leading to the current appeal. The appellants argued that they were unable to utilize the benefits under the DFIA Scheme after obtaining authorization, leading them to surrender the authorization, which was subsequently canceled by the DGFT authorities. The cancellation letter, issued after the lower authorities' decisions, was not considered during the initial process. The judgment highlighted the importance of a circular dated 16.1.2004, which specified that only the jurisdictional Commissioner had the authority to allow the conversion of Shipping Bills between export promotion schemes, subject to certain conditions. It was noted that neither the Authorized Officer nor the lower appellate authority had the jurisdiction to handle such a conversion case as per the circular. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Commissioner was instructed to consider the circular dated 16.1.2004, the conditions outlined therein, and the cancellation letter dated 26.4.2011. The appellants were to be given a fair hearing before a new decision was made, and the appeal was allowed for remand under the specified terms.
|
