2017 (4) TMI 479 - AT - Customs

Amendment in shipping bill - DFIA scheme to DEPB scheme - rejection of application for amendment of shipping bill on the ground that there was no dispute with the DGFT and hence the request does not get covered under the Board Circular No. 4/2004-Cus. dated 16.01.2004 - Held that - the Circular of 2010 is not applicable in the present case as it has been made clear in para 6 of the said circular. The Circular of 2004 is applicable in the present case. It is undisputed that the shipping bills have been filed between 26.10.2006 and 12.12.2006 and the request for amendment was made on 15.09.2007. Hence, the Commissioner correctly relied upon the Circular of 2004 and rejected the request for non-fulfillment of condition of that circular. Not only there was no dispute leading to denial of benefit, but the request for conversion has not also been filed within the one month of such denial - there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner and the same is sustained - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of amendment of shipping bills from DFIA scheme to DEPB scheme based on Circulars of 2004 and 2010, conditions for conversion, absence of dispute with DGFT, and timeliness of application.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed the rejection of amending four shipping bills from DFIA to DEPB scheme by the Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner based the rejection on the absence of a dispute with the DGFT, not fulfilling conditions under Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., and timeliness. The appellant argued that the DFIA scheme required less rigorous checks than DEPB, citing Circulars of 2004 and 2010. The AR contended that the 2010 Circular did not apply, and the 2004 Circular required requests within one month of denial of benefits due to a dispute. The AR cited case laws supporting these arguments.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner verified with DGFT, confirming no benefit denial due to dispute. The 2004 Circular applied to the case period, and the request was untimely. Unlike the cases cited by the appellant, the principles of natural justice were followed. Case laws cited by the AR supported the denial based on lack of benefit denial under the DEEC scheme. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order based on these findings.

Referring to judgments in similar cases, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner's order. Citing cases like Manawat Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and Onassis Auto Products Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the denial of the conversion request. The appeal by the appellant was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's decision.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the legal judgment, including the interpretation of Circulars, conditions for amendment of shipping bills, absence of disputes with DGFT, and the timeliness of the application, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.