2017 (5) TMI 268 - AT - Customs

Conversion of shipping bills after export of goods - rejection on account of time bar - case of appellant is that the conversion had been sought u/s 149 of CA, 1962 which does not spell out any time limit as interpreted in the impugned order. It is their submission that circulars, such as no.36/2010-Cus dated 23rd September 2010 of Central Board of Excise & Customs, cannot impose conditions not contemplated in or override the statute itself - Held that - benefit of scheme arising from any amendment will not be governed by section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 but shall be governed by the circular prescribing conditions thereto which cannot be said to be moored to any provision of the Act - there is no infirmity in the application of time limit to the application for conversion - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Conversion of shipping bill from 'drawback scheme' to 'advance authorisation scheme'; Time limit for conversion under section 149 of Customs Act, 1962; Applicability of Circular No.36/2010-Cus; Interpretation of time limit for conversion; Judicial precedents on conversion of shipping bills.

Analysis:

1. Conversion of Shipping Bill: The case involved M/s Unique Pharmaceuticals seeking conversion of two shipping bills from 'drawback scheme' to 'advance authorisation scheme'. The goods exported were 'tinidazole tablets' and 'DF sodium DR' with specific FOB values. The appellant claimed and was allowed drawbacks for both bills, and the goods were examined before 'let export order' was endorsed.

2. Time Limit for Conversion: The adjudicating authority allowed conversion of one shipping bill subject to repayment of drawback but rejected the other due to being time-barred. The appellant contended that section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, under which conversion was sought, did not specify any time limit. They argued against the imposition of time limits through circulars like No.36/2010-Cus, citing judicial precedents to support their interpretation.

3. Applicability of Circular No.36/2010-Cus: The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 149, emphasizing the discretion of Customs officers to authorize amendments based on existing documentary evidence at the time of export. The Tribunal referred to a case where conversion was sought after a year and was denied due to lack of supporting evidence. However, the Tribunal clarified that there was no specific time limit under Section 149 for conversion.

4. Interpretation of Time Limit: The Tribunal discussed the relevance of Circular No.36/2010-Cus and judicial decisions on conversion requests. They highlighted that the discretion for conversion lies with the Proper Officer based on documentary evidence available at the time of export. The Tribunal differentiated between routine amendments and scheme conversions, noting that Circulars govern conversion procedures, not Section 149 of the Customs Act.

5. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal referenced decisions from the High Court and previous cases to support the interpretation that the benefit of scheme arising from amendments is regulated by circulars, not the Customs Act. They concluded that the time limit imposed on the conversion request was valid, as Circulars prescribe conditions for such conversions, not the Act itself.

6. Final Decision: The Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the application of the time limit for conversion. They emphasized that circulars govern scheme conversions and affirmed the decision of the adjudicating authority. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of conversion of shipping bills, time limits under the Customs Act, applicability of Circulars, and judicial precedents to determine the validity of conversion requests. The Tribunal's decision clarified the role of circulars in governing scheme conversions and upheld the rejection of the appeal based on the imposed time limit for conversion requests.