2016 (8) TMI 342 - AT - Customs

Rejection of application for conversion of the shipping bill filed under advance authorization scheme to shipping bill under Drawback scheme delay in filing application for conversion was more than three year Held that - while there is no time limit prescribed under Section 149, such application need to be made within reasonable time amendment not allowed appeal dismissed decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Conversion of shipping bill under advance authorization scheme to drawback scheme, Time limit for submission of application under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, Relevance of previous court decisions on similar cases, Discretion of Proper Officer for allowing amendments in shipping bills, Distinction between amendment and conversion of shipping bills, Impact of delay in seeking conversion, Requirement of documentary evidence for amendments, Physical verification and examination of goods for scheme benefits.

Analysis:
The case involved an application by M/s Superhouse Ltd. for converting a shipping bill filed under the advance authorization scheme to a shipping bill under the drawback scheme. The appellant approached the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs for this conversion after filing the initial shipping bill. The Commissioner rejected the application as time-barred, leading to the appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not specify a time limit for such applications. They highlighted a previous case where a similar conversion was allowed at Nhava Sheva Port. In contrast, the Assistant Commissioner argued that a delay of more than one year in seeking conversion should lead to rejection, citing a decision of the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and emphasized that while Section 149 does not prescribe a time limit, applications must be made within a reasonable timeframe. They referenced the Delhi High Court decision, noting that a delay exceeding three years should not be allowed for such amendments. The Tribunal distinguished between an amendment and a conversion of shipping bills, stressing the need for documentary evidence existing at the time of export for any changes.

Based on the analysis and the precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision. They emphasized the importance of timely applications for conversions, considering the impact on the status and benefits under different export promotion schemes. The judgment highlighted the discretion of the Proper Officer in permitting amendments and the practical challenges of verifying goods and documents after a significant delay.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was influenced by the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, previous court decisions, and the practical implications of allowing conversions after substantial delays. The case underscores the significance of timely actions in seeking changes to shipping bills under different export schemes, balancing the need for procedural adherence with the requirements of documentary evidence and verification processes.