2001 (1) TMI 386 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against the conversion of a DEEC shipping bill to a Drawback shipping bill.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the conversion of a DEEC shipping bill to a Drawback shipping bill by a company. The company had initially exported bicycles to Russia under DEEC shipping bills and later applied for conversion to Drawback shipping bill.

2. The Revenue raised grounds challenging the order, stating that the company did not provide any new reasons or evidence to support the conversion, and the Commissioner's order was not a speaking order. The Revenue also questioned the delay in getting the DEEC books logged and the reasons for the delay, which were not adequately addressed in the order.

3. The company cited unfavorable market conditions and fund shortages as reasons for the conversion, which the Commissioner accepted. The company argued that the discretionary order should only be challenged in limited circumstances, as per the guidelines laid down by the Kerala High Court. The Commissioner's satisfaction with the company's explanation was highlighted as a reasonable ground for the order.

4. The company explained that they could not continue under the DEEC scheme due to import difficulties, leading to the need for conversion to the Drawback scheme. The Commissioner accepted the company's explanation of unfavorable market conditions as a valid reason for the conversion. The Tribunal found no error or illegality in the Commissioner's order and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

5. The Tribunal emphasized that market conditions can impact export trade and supported the Commissioner's decision to allow the conversion based on the company's explanation. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conversion of the DEEC shipping bill to a Drawback shipping bill based on the company's genuine reasons and the discretionary power exercised by the Commissioner.