2010 (11) TMI 269 - AT - Customs

Conversion of shipping bills - Conversion of EP copy of shipping bills from EPCG & DEPB to EPCG & DFIA - The appellants had exported 7 consignments of Non-alloy Steel Slabs claiming benefit under EPCG & DEPB scheme - Since the export goods had been withdrawn from the DEPB scheme, they had sought amendment of the shipping bills claiming EPCG & DFIA benefits. The application filed by the appellants for conversion of shipping bills from one scheme to another has been denied by the Commissioner without communicating any reason therefor - Commissioner is competent to allow the amendment sought by the appellants - The appellants are entitled to the relief sought in terms of provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - As the Commissioner has not disposed the application filed by the appellants by a speaking order - Hence, allow the appeal filed by the appellants and direct the Commissioner to consider the application filed by the appellants - Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of conversion of EP copy of shipping bills from EPCG & DEPB to EPCG & DFIA scheme.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conversion of Export Scheme:
The appeal was filed by M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. against the denial of conversion of EP copy of shipping bills from EPCG & DEPB to EPCG & DFIA by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs. The appellants exported 7 consignments of Non-alloy Steel Slabs under EPCG & DEPB scheme and sought amendment of shipping bills for EPCG & DFIA benefits. They argued that they had the statutory right under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, to seek such amendment based on existing documentary evidence at the time of export. They referenced the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 and relevant Tribunal decisions to support their claim for conversion.

2. Legal Submissions:
The appellants contended that they met the requirements for EPCG and DFIA schemes, and as per Section 149 of the Customs Act, shipping bills could be amended based on documentary evidence available at the time of filing. They highlighted the expiry dates of DFIA and the cryptic communication from the Asst. Commissioner rejecting their application to the Commissioner. The argument emphasized the appellants' compliance with export scheme conditions and the need for a reasoned decision from the Commissioner.

3. Conditions for Conversion:
The Standing Counsel for the Respondent referred to Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., which outlined conditions for conversion of shipping bills between export schemes. These conditions included timely request submission, satisfactory proof of input usage, compliance with export scheme conditions, and no prior benefit availed under the exported scheme. The Respondent's submission focused on the procedural aspects and documentary requirements for conversion.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
After considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner had denied the conversion application without providing any reasoning. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that they were entitled to seek relief under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. As the Commissioner failed to issue a speaking order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Commissioner to consider the application within 10 days from the order receipt. The appeal was disposed of by remand, emphasizing the appellants' right to seek conversion based on statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the statutory rights of exporters to seek amendment of shipping bills under the Customs Act. The case underscored the need for reasoned decisions by authorities when dealing with conversion requests between export schemes, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal provisions.