2023 (7) TMI 726 - AT - Customs

Omission to claim duty drawback - Focus Product Scheme - conversion /amendment of the shipping bills into drawback shipping bills - no examination of the goods exported - rejection of request for conversion of shipping on the ground that the appellant has not established that the omission to file the drawback shipping bills was due to reasons beyond his control. Whether the rejection of request for conversion of shipping bills into drawback shipping bill is legal and proper? - HELD THAT - The first ground for rejection is that some of the requests are made beyond the period of 3 months as stipulated in the Board circular No.36/2010. The very same issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of Autotech Industries (India) Ltd. 2021 (11) TMI 518 - CESTAT CHENNAI and the Tribunal held that the request for conversion of shipping bill cannot be rejected as time barred on the basis of the Board circular. The second ground for rejection is that the packages have not been opened for examination - HELD THAT - In the present case, the shipping bills are filed under the Focus Product Scheme and are not completely free shipping bill. The exporter cannot be disadvantaged by rejecting the request for conversion of the shipping bill when the export of goods have not been disputed. Further, there is no evidence brought forth by the department as to any specific violation of any provisions of law with regard to the goods exported. The third ground for rejection is that the appellant has not put forward any ground justifying that the omission to file drawback shipping bill was for reasons beyond his control - HELD THAT - It can be seen that Rule 12(1) of Drawback Rules,1995 allows conversion of shipping bill, if the exporter or his authorized agent has, for reasons beyond his control, failed to file the declaration. In the present case, the appellants have submitted that they had inadvertently omitted to file the declaration that the shipping bills are drawback shipping bills - appellant has given plausible explanation for the omission. The rejection of request for conversion on this ground cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. The rejection of request for conversion of shipping bill is not justified. Impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Examination of goods exported.
2. Time-barred request for amendment.
3. Justification for omission to file drawback shipping bills.

Summary:

1. Examination of Goods Exported:
The first ground for rejection was the lack of examination of the goods exported. The appellant argued that the shipping bills were filed under the Focus Product Scheme, which follows similar norms for examination as the drawback scheme. According to Circular No.1/2009-Cus., a minimum of two packages up to a maximum of 5% of packages should be selected for examination. The Tribunal found that the rejection on the ground that the consignment was not examined was without basis, as the export of goods was not disputed, and there was no evidence of any specific violation of law.

2. Time-barred Request for Amendment:
The second ground for rejection was that the request for amendment was made beyond the three-month period stipulated in Board Circular No.36/2010-Cus. The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including Autotech Industries (India) Ltd. Vs CC Chennai-IV and Global Calcium Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC Chennai IV, concluding that Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, does not prescribe any time limit for filing an application for amendment of shipping bills. The Tribunal held that the rejection of the request on the basis of the Board circular was not justified, as the law allows amendment even after the goods have been exported, provided documentary evidence in existence at the time of export is produced.

3. Justification for Omission to File Drawback Shipping Bills:
The third ground for rejection was that the appellant did not establish that the omission to file drawback shipping bills was beyond their control. The appellant argued that the omission was bona fide and sought conversion of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Rule 12(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules, 1995, allows for conversion if the exporter fails to comply with the declaration requirement for reasons beyond their control. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation for the omission plausible and held that the rejection on this ground was not sustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the request for conversion of shipping bills into drawback shipping bills was not justified. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.