2018 (4) TMI 1764 - AT - Customs

Conversion of shipping bill - request for conversion of fresh shipping bill to advance licence shipping bills - request for conversion rejected on the basis of time limit, as prescribed by Circular No.36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010 - Adjudicating Authority has rejected such request of the assessee on the ground that the request has been made after the period of 3 months. HELD THAT - Tribunal in the case of M/S DIAMOND ENGINEERING (CHENNAI) PVT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEAPORT), CHENNAI 2013 (3) TMI 46 - CESTAT CHENNAI has dealt with an identical issue and has observed that inasmuch as Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which governs the said issue, does not prescribe any time limit, the said Circular No.36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010 cannot be adopted for rejecting the request on the basis of time limit. Matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for examining the appellant s request for conversion, without raising the objection of time limit - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Circular No.36/2010-Cus regarding time limit for conversion of shipping bills to advance licence shipping bills.

Analysis:
1. Issue: Whether the appellant's request for conversion of fresh shipping bill to advance licence shipping bills can be rejected based on the time limit set by Circular No.36/2010-Cus.

Analysis: The Adjudicating Authority rejected the request citing the 3-month time limit specified in Circular No.36/2010-Cus. However, the Tribunal in previous cases like Diamond Engg. (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. and Parle Product Pvt. Ltd. has held that since Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not specify a time limit, Circular No.36/2010-Cus cannot be used to reject such requests solely based on time constraints.

2. Decision: The Member (Judicial) found that the rejection solely on the grounds of time limit was not valid. The judgment sets aside the rejection and remands the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation without considering the time limit objection.

3. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by directing the Original Adjudicating Authority to reexamine the appellant's request without the time limit constraint, following the precedents set by previous Tribunal decisions.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 while interpreting circulars like Circular No.36/2010-Cus. It highlights the need for a case-specific examination of requests for conversion without rigidly applying time limits not specified in the governing legislation.