2015 (1) TMI 205 - AT - Customs

Denial of conversion of shipping bills filed for obligation under the EPCG scheme to DEPB scheme - Held that - As there was no declaration of PMV by the assessee therefore, conversion was not allowed. But in the case of Diamond Engineering (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (3) TMI 46 - CESTAT CHENNAI) this Tribunal has examined the decision of Actavis Pharma Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (12) TMI 152 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) relied upon by the learned AR and considered the fact of the case are not similar as in that case shipping bills were filed for the conversion of the shipping bills from Advance Licence Scheme to DEPB Scheme. In this case the facts are of similar to the facts of Diamond Engineering (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. As the assessee sought conversion from DEEC scheme to DEPB scheme and examination level in both the situation are similar. Therefore, on the basis of the document produced at the time of export the adjudicating authority should have allowed the conversion. As those documents have not been examined by the adjudicating authority therefore, the matter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority to verify the fact that for conversion from EPCG scheme to DEPB scheme the export documents are sufficient to grant conversion or not. The adjudicating authority is directed to act accordingly and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against denial of conversion of shipping bills from EPCG scheme to DEPB scheme.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Conversion Denial: The appellant appealed against the denial of conversion of shipping bills from the EPCG scheme to the DEPB scheme. The appellant argued that the denial was based on Circular No. 4/2004-Cus. and Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, but cited Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. to support their claim for conversion. The appellant relied on a case law to strengthen their argument.

2. Contention of the Respondent: The respondent strongly opposed the appellant's contention, stating that the shipping bills did not mention the PMV, leading to the denial of conversion. The respondent referred to a decision by the Tribunal in a different case to support their stance.

3. Tribunal's Consideration: The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both sides. They found that the case law cited by the respondent was not applicable to the current case. The Tribunal differentiated between cases involving free shipping bills and those seeking conversion from one scheme to another. They emphasized the importance of examining the export documents to determine the eligibility for conversion. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reexamine the documents and make a decision based on the facts presented.

4. Decision and Remand: Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand. They instructed the adjudicating authority to review the export documents and make a decision on the conversion from EPCG scheme to DEPB scheme based on the evidence provided. The adjudicating authority was directed to act in accordance with the law and pass an appropriate order after reevaluation.