2019 (5) TMI 492 - HC - Customs

Amendment / conversion of shipping bill - Time Limitation - Whether the 2nd respondent tribunal was right in holding that the 1st respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Circular No.36/2010, dated 23.09.2010 and that the period of limitation of 3 months under the said circular is not applicable to the 1st respondent as Section 149 does not impose any period of limitation? HELD THAT - The order passed by the Tribunal is remanding the matter for consideration of the adjudicating authority to examine the documents on the basis of which amendment is sought and also to ensure as to whether those documents were available at the time of filing of the shipping bills or not, and if those documents on the basis of which amendment is sought were available at the time of filing of the shipping bills, then the respondent/importer is entitled for conversion of the shipping bills from Advance Licence Scheme to DEPB Scheme. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Applicability of Circular No.36/2010 regarding limitation period.
2. Interpretation of Circular No.36/2010 in relation to shipping bills.
3. Comparison between Circular No.36/2010 and Circular 4/2004.
4. Remittance of case back to adjudicating authority for document verification.
5. Consideration of fresh documents in the case.
6. Interpretation of circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the applicability of Circular No.36/2010 and the limitation period under Section 149. The Tribunal's decision was based on whether the 1st respondent was entitled to the benefit of the circular and if the limitation period of 3 months applied.

2. The Tribunal's decision also focused on the interpretation of Circular No.36/2010 concerning the filing of shipping bills before and after the circular's issuance date. The Tribunal considered whether the circular applied retroactively to shipping bills filed before its implementation date.

3. A comparison between Circular No.36/2010 and Circular 4/2004 was made to determine their relevance and applicability at the time of filing the shipping bills. The Tribunal assessed the impact of these circulars on the case at hand and their respective provisions under the Customs Act, 1962.

4. The Tribunal's order remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for verifying the existence of documents at the time of export. This decision was based on the need to ensure that the documents submitted for amendment were available when the shipping bills were filed, potentially affecting the conversion of the bills from Advance Licence Scheme to DEPB Scheme.

5. The issue of considering fresh documents that were not previously presented before the adjudicating authority arose. The Tribunal's decision to remit the case back for document verification highlighted the importance of assessing any additional or overlooked documents that could impact the case.

6. Lastly, the interpretation of circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 151A of the Customs Act, 1962 was discussed. The Tribunal considered whether these circulars could be read along with various provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 during implementation, emphasizing the legal significance of these circulars in customs-related matters.

Conclusion:
After thorough consideration, the High Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The decision was based on the Tribunal's reliance on previous judgments and interpretations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.

← Previous Next →