2014 (3) TMI 13 - AT - Customs

Conversion of Shipping Bills from Drawback and EPCG Scheme to EPCG Drawback and DEEC Scheme - Whether conversion without any proof for rejection of their request for allowing the benefit on export promotion scheme by DGFT, is appropriate in terms of Circular No.4/2004 dated 16.01.2004 - Held that - examination by the Central Excise Officer cannot substitute for examination by the Customs officer. - for enabling an exporter to draw the benefit of any scheme, not only physical verification of documents would be required, but also verification of the goods of export and their examination by the customs was necessarily required to be done - Following decision of The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Export) Versus M/s. Suzlon Energy Limited 2013 (3) TMI 506 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Conversion of Shipping Bill from Free Shipping Bill to DEPB Scheme under CBEC Circular No. 4/2004 - Rejection by Commissioner of Customs (Exports).

Analysis:
The appellant filed Shipping Bill under a no incentive scheme but later requested conversion to DEPB Scheme. The Commissioner of Customs rejected the conversion request. The appellant argued that since the goods were properly sealed and examined by Central Excise officers, conversion should be allowed. The appellant cited Board Circular No. 6/2002-Cus. and relevant case laws to support the argument.

The Revenue contended that the Madras High Court decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. mandated verification and examination of goods for such conversions. The Revenue also pointed out that the Board's circular mentioned examination is required for drawback/DEPB claimed cases.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's argument regarding the examination of goods by Central Excise officers. However, it held that the Board Circular mandates examination by customs officers for exports under drawback/DEPB schemes. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the ARE-1 and Annexure-C1 regarding the declaration of export under DEPB scheme. It emphasized that examination by Central Excise officers cannot substitute examination by Customs officers.

Referring to the Madras High Court decision, the Tribunal reiterated the requirement for physical verification and examination of goods by customs for availing scheme benefits. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating no reason to interfere with it, and rejected the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the requirement for customs examination in cases of scheme conversions, as mandated by relevant circulars and judicial precedents. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper documentation and verification procedures for availing export schemes, ultimately upholding the Commissioner's rejection of the conversion request.