2008 (5) TMI 234 - AT - Customs

Appellant approached for conversion of draw back shipping bills to DEEC shipping bills - There is nothing on record to say that the appellants had claimed the duty drawback and was sanctioned to him - In the absence of any such sanctioning of duty drawback, impugned order rejecting the request of the appellant to convert the drawback shipping bills, is liable to be set aside - lower authorities are directed to convert the bills

Summary

Issues: Conversion of duty drawback shipping bills to DEEC shipping bills, applicability of circulars, appealability of Commissioner's decision

Conversion of Duty Drawback Shipping Bills to DEEC Shipping Bills:
The appellant sought conversion of their 16 drawback shipping bills to DEEC shipping bills after realizing the need to comply with export obligations under an advance license. The Commissioner rejected the conversion without providing any reason. However, the Tribunal found that the conversion should not have been denied since the appellants were not granted any duty drawback, and subsequent shipping bills indicated the advance license number under which the materials were imported. The Tribunal referenced various decisions, including Man Industries Ltd., Sanghi Industries Ltd., Smruti Pottery Works, and JSW Ltd., to support the conversion request. The Tribunal emphasized that the conversion could be allowed based on available export documents and fulfillment of scheme conditions.

Applicability of Circulars and Tribunal Decisions:
The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides regarding the applicability of circulars and previous tribunal decisions in similar cases. The appellant's counsel successfully demonstrated that the issue was covered by various tribunal decisions, supporting the conversion of shipping bills from duty drawback to DEEC scheme. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of proving the use of inputs in the export product and fulfilling all conditions of the export promotion scheme for such conversions.

Appealability of Commissioner's Decision:
The respondent argued that the decision of the Commissioner was not appealable since it was communicated through a letter. However, the Tribunal referred to the case of Jindal Stainless Limited, where it was established that the Commissioner's decision, even if communicated through a letter, was appealable under the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner's decision, made after hearing the party and fulfilling principles of natural justice, could be challenged through the appeal process. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the conversion request and directed the lower authorities to convert the drawback shipping bills to DEEC shipping bills, ultimately disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellant.