2004 (12) TMI 206 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Mistake in filing Shipping Bills under the wrong export promotion scheme.
2. Rejection of DEPB credit application by JDGFT due to the omission of 'DEPB' in Shipping Bills.
3. Request for correction of the Shipping Bills from "EPCG" to "EPCG and DEPB".
4. Applicability of Policy Circular No. 7/2002 and Circular No. 4/2004-Cus.
5. Commissioner's rejection of the request for correction and subsequent appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Mistake in Filing Shipping Bills:
The appellants filed Shipping Bills under the Zero duty EPCG Scheme instead of the required EPCG and DEPB (post-exports) scheme. This mistake was made by their CHA, who admitted the error. The appellants realized the mistake upon receiving the export promotion (EP) copies and returned the documents for correction.

2. Rejection of DEPB Credit Application:
The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT) rejected the appellants' DEPB credit application because the EP copies of the Shipping Bills did not mention 'DEPB'. This procedural lapse led to the denial of DEPB benefits to the appellants.

3. Request for Correction of Shipping Bills:
On 13-2-2004, the appellants requested the Commissioner of Customs (Export) to condone the mistake and allow correction of the Shipping Bills from "EPCG" to "EPCG and DEPB". The Customs House requested certain documents, which the appellants provided. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs informed the appellants that their request for conversion had not been considered by the appropriate authority. The appellants reiterated their request, citing Policy Circular No. 7/2002 and Circular No. 4/2004-Cus.

4. Applicability of Policy Circular No. 7/2002 and Circular No. 4/2004-Cus:
The appellants argued that the non-mention of the correct scheme was a procedural lapse that could be condoned under Policy Circular No. 7/2002. They also contended that conversion of Shipping Bills from one export promotion scheme to another was permissible under Circular No. 4/2004-Cus. The Commissioner, however, rejected their request, stating that the conditions for conversion under the Circular were not fulfilled.

5. Commissioner's Rejection and Subsequent Appeal:
The Commissioner rejected the appellants' request for conversion, noting that there was no proof that Customs or JDGFT had denied the benefit. The appellants appealed against this decision, arguing that their case fell within the ambit of Circular No. 4/2004-Cus. They claimed that the mistake was genuine and that they had fulfilled all conditions for conversion. The Tribunal found that the appellants' request was for a simple amendment of the Shipping Bills to reflect the real nature of export, not a conversion of the nature of exports. The Tribunal held that the appellants had fulfilled all conditions for conversion and allowed the appeal, directing that "EPCG and DEPB (post export)" be substituted for "Zero duty EPCG" in the Shipping Bills. The Tribunal also ordered urgent issuance of the order to allow the appellants to apply for DEPB credit within the extended period prescribed in the Exim Policy 2002-2007.