2014 (11) TMI 194 - AT - Customs

Denial of the conversion of shipping bill from DEPB to duty drawback scheme - Misdeclaration of goods - Held that - Fact that during the period October 2000 to March 2001, the appellant filed shipping bill claiming the benefit under DEPB scheme. On examination, the goods were found misdeclared for availing the benefit of DEPB scheme. In these circumstances, the appellant applied for conversion of shipping bill from DEPB to duty drawback scheme. The provisions of conversion of DEPB to duty drawback scheme came on 28.01.2003 through CBEC Circular no. 6/2003-Cus. The letter dated 20.10.2001 have no legal sanctity in the matter as it is a mere communication between the department. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order; same is upheld - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Conversion of shipping bill from DEPB to duty drawback scheme

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the order denying the conversion of shipping bill from DEPB to duty drawback scheme. The appellant had filed shipping bills under the DEPB scheme from October 2000 to March 2001, which were later found to be misdeclared and ineligible for DEPB benefits. Subsequently, the appellant sought to convert these shipping bills to the duty drawback scheme. However, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the application citing that the provisions for such conversion were not in force during the relevant period but were introduced on 28.01.2003. The appellant contended that a communication dated 20.10.2001 supported their conversion request.

Upon hearing the arguments and reviewing the records, it was established that the appellant indeed filed shipping bills under the DEPB scheme during the specified period, but the goods were misdeclared for DEPB benefits. The provisions for converting DEPB to duty drawback scheme were introduced through CBEC Circular no. 6/2003-Cus on 28.01.2003. The communication dated 20.10.2001, relied upon by the appellant, was deemed as a non-binding communication between departments and lacked legal validity in the context of the conversion request. Consequently, the impugned order denying the conversion was upheld, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the relevant legal provisions and timelines governing the conversion of schemes for shipping bills. It underscores the significance of official regulations over informal communications in determining the eligibility of such conversions. The decision serves as a reminder for entities to ensure compliance with established guidelines and to rely on legally recognized documents when seeking modifications to their benefit schemes.