9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 254 - AT - CustomsAmendment of shipping bill from no export incentive to read as no duty draw back and to convert the shipment under DFIA and VKUY scheme - due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of clearing agent, shipping bill was cleared as no export incentives scheme - request for amendment of the shipping bill rejected on the ground that conversion of free shipping bill into an advanced shipping bill is not possible. HELD THAT - In present case export was made under a specific scheme formulated under import policy of DGFT and DGFT is the authority to confirm whether the incentives as claimed by the appellant can be allowed. In Appellant s case M/S. SAURABH OVERSEAS TRADERS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN 2017 (7) TMI 7 - CESTAT BANGALORE , DGFT considered issue and made suitable amendment in the license and same was produced as part of the appeal memorandum. But said facts were not considered by adjudicating authority while issuing impugned order. The issue whether the time limit prescribed as per the Board circular will apply in such cases was considered by this Tribunal in the case of M/S. AUTOTECH INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CHENNAI IV COMMISSIONERATE 2021 (11) TMI 518 - CESTAT CHENNAI and held that time limit of three months prescribed in the above Board circular cannot be applied to reject the request of conversion/amendment of shipping bills. The Tribunal in the case of M/S. CONTEMPORARY LEATHER PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2021 (12) TMI 293 - CESTAT CHENNAI followed the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court and held that the Board circular cannot be pressed into application to deny the request for conversion of shipping bills. The appellant has claimed the benefit of DFIA scheme and VKGUY scheme at the time of export and has specifically mentioned the DFIA file number and also claimed VKGUY scheme in the shipping bills as well as in the invoices. Thus there is no justification to deny the request for amending the shipping bill. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the amendment of a shipping bill from no export incentive to a duty draw back and the conversion of the shipment under DFIA and VKUY scheme, as well as the rejection of the request for amendment of the shipping bill. Summary: 1. The appellant filed a shipping bill for export but later requested an amendment due to an inadvertent mistake, which was rejected. The Tribunal set aside the order, but the High Court remanded the matter for further consideration. 2. Upon re-hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted the communication with authorities regarding the amendment request. The High Court's decision in a similar case was referenced, questioning the denial based on a circular. 3. The adjudicating authority did not consider the appellant's detailed submissions and issued the impugned order without proper examination. The appellant intended to claim benefits under specific schemes despite the error in the shipping bill. 4. Various judgments were cited in support of the appellant's position, emphasizing the possibility of converting a free shipping bill to an incentive scheme under Section 149 of the Customs Act 1962. 5. Invoices and shipping bill details clearly indicated the schemes under which the export was made, supporting the appellant's claim for amendment. 6. The appellant's intention to claim benefits under specific schemes was evident from the shipping bill itself, not just as a later request for incentives post-export. 7. The appellant's counsel referred to relevant judgments supporting the allowance of amendments in shipping bills for claiming incentives. 8. The AR supported the adjudication authority's decision, emphasizing the need for examination of goods under each scheme before considering an amendment request. 9. The Tribunal considered the facts comprehensively and allowed the appeal, noting the appellant's compliance with the schemes and the oversight in the shipping bill. 10. Precedents were cited to support the appellant's claim for amendment, highlighting that the time limit prescribed in a circular should not restrict the amendment of shipping bills. 11. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order denying the amendment was set aside. (Order pronounced in Open court on 30.01.2024)
|
