2007 (3) TMI 272 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the following four questions of law:
A. Whether the 'Conversion' of Shipping Bill from one scheme to another is a change substantive in nature and different than the 'Amendment' of document as envisaged u/s. 149 of Customs Act, 1962?
B. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in holding that 'Amendment' of document as u/s. 149 of Customs Act, 1962 and Conversion of Shipping Bills from one scheme to another are one and the same?
C. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in relying on the decision in the case of Smruti Pottery Works, 2004 (163) E.L.T. 184 (T) which deals with free shipping bill whereas in the instant case the Shipping bills are not free shipping bills?
D. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in holding that the Board Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., dated 16-1-2004 applicable to the exporter without considering that the exporter satisfies all the conditions mentioned therein?

Issue A: Conversion of Shipping Bill vs. Amendment of Document
The Respondent had imported goods under the DEEC license but mistakenly mentioned seeking benefits under the DEPB Scheme in the Shipping Bill. The Commissioner of Customs found that the exporters were entitled to DEEC Scheme benefits but chose DEPB Scheme. The CESTAT held that the claim for conversion was eligible for consideration under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on documentary evidence existing at the time of export. The CESTAT set aside the Commissioner's refusal of the amendment, stating that the claim was valid.

Issue B: Interpretation of Amendment vs. Conversion
The CESTAT's decision was based on the principle that the claim for conversion of Shipping Bills was valid under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, regardless of not falling within the Board's Circulars. The CESTAT emphasized that the claim was supported by documentary evidence existing at the time of export, meeting the requirements of the proviso to Section 149. The CESTAT deemed the Commissioner's order refusing the amendment as untenable and set it aside.

Issue C: Reliance on Precedent and Applicability of Circular
The CESTAT's reliance on a previous case involving free shipping bills was questioned, as the present case involved different types of shipping bills. Additionally, the justification of applying Board Circular No. 4/2004-Cus. to the exporter without considering if all conditions were met was raised. However, the judgment did not find any substantial question of law in this regard.

Issue D: Finding of Fact and Dismissal of Appeal
The judgment concluded that the matter was a finding of fact based on documents provided by the Respondents, with no substantial question of law involved. As there was no dispute regarding the accuracy of the documents, the appeal was dismissed.