2022 (9) TMI 1074 - AT - Customs

Rejection of amendment/ conversion of 14 Shipping Bills from Scheme Code 00 (free Shipping Bill involving remittance of foreign exchange) to Scheme Code 11 - non-submission of necessary documents - EPCG Scheme - HELD THAT - It is not possible to accept submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Once there was a positive direction by the Tribunal to the appellant to provide all the documents to prove its claim, it was absolutely necessary for the appellant to submit such documents as these documents were necessary to examine whether the appellant was entitled for conversion of the free shipping bills to EPCG Scheme. It does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend that though the Tribunal had directed the appellant to submit documents before the Commissioner to prove its claim, the Commissioner should on his own have called for the documents from his office even if the appellant had failed to produce the documents. There are no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of request for amendment/conversion of Shipping Bills from Scheme Code '00' to Scheme Code '11'.
2. Compliance with EPCG License requirements for export goods.
3. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner and Tribunal's remand order.
4. Failure to provide necessary documents for conversion.
5. Justification for rejection of appellant's claim.

Issue 1: Rejection of request for amendment/conversion of Shipping Bills
The appellant's request to amend/conversion of 14 Shipping Bills from Scheme Code '00' to Scheme Code '11' was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The rejection was based on the delay in making the request, exceeding the prescribed period of three months from the Let Export Order date, as per CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Customs. The Commissioner highlighted that free shipping bills are subject to 'nil' examination norms and conversion to EP scheme shipping bills should not be allowed. The Tribunal, in an earlier order, allowed the appeal and directed the original adjudicating authority to convert the free shipping bills to EPCG shipping bills, emphasizing the need for the appellant to provide all necessary documents within three months.

Issue 2: Compliance with EPCG License requirements for export goods
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing fabricated metal products, exported goods under an EPCG License granted for production. The appellant imported capital goods and claimed that the machine was installed at the factory premises, with an Installation Certificate issued by the Excise Officer. However, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade required the Shipping Bills for redeeming the EPCG License. The appellant's attempt to include the License Number in the Shipping Bills was rejected by the Principal Commissioner, citing the delay in the request and lack of provision for condoning such delay.

Issue 3: Rejection of appeal by Commissioner and Tribunal's remand order
After the Tribunal's initial order allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the original adjudicating authority, the Commissioner again rejected the request for conversion. The Commissioner emphasized the lack of submission of documents by the appellant to establish the claim that goods were exported against the EPCG License. The Commissioner held the appellant responsible for conclusively proving export obligations under the EPCG License.

Issue 4: Failure to provide necessary documents for conversion
The appellant failed to provide the required documents to prove the claim for conversion of free shipping bills to the EPCG Scheme, despite specific directions from the Tribunal. The Commissioner noted the absence of any submitted documents to establish the claim, leading to unanswered questions regarding the exports made under the EPCG License. The responsibility to conclusively prove export obligations under the EPCG License rested with the appellant.

Issue 5: Justification for rejection of appellant's claim
The appellant's argument that the Commissioner should have obtained the necessary documents or that they were available in the appeal file was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the claim, emphasizing the appellant's failure to comply with the direction to provide essential documents. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision to reject the claim, as the documents were crucial to determine the appellant's entitlement for conversion of the free shipping bills to the EPCG Scheme.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of timely compliance with regulatory requirements, the need for substantiating claims with necessary documentation, and the consequences of failing to provide essential proof in legal proceedings related to customs and export promotion schemes.