2024 (2) TMI 1098 - AT - Customs

Conversion of Shipping bill under Drawback scheme to Advance Authorisation scheme - Condition provided in Board's Circular No. 36/2010 - Payment of customs duties on goods exported - documents of export are produced - time limit in the Circular No.36/2010 - HELD THAT - No allegation that on the basis of Shipping Bill/export documents, the exporter has not fulfilled any of the conditions of the export promotion scheme to which he is seeking conversion. Further there is no allegation that the examination report and other endorsements made on the shipping bill/export documents is not sufficient prove the fact of export and the export product is clearly covered under relevant drawback Schedule. Further there is no allegation of fraud/ misdeclaration/manipulation against the appellant. Adjudicating authority concluded that the Appellant was not diligent in maintaining the records and on that ground, the request for amendment is denied. However as per the finding in the order, when certain omissions were brought to the notice of the Appellant, they have verified the records and rectified the same and therefore it cannot be concluded as they are not diligent in maintaining the records. Thus, the impugned order rejecting the request for conversion of the shipping bill based on the Circular No.36/2010 is set aside. The issue is remanded for De-novo adjudication and adjudicating authority is directed to consider the documents produced by the appellant and to decide whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Scheme to which they want to convert their claim. Needless to say before, considering the issue, reasonable opportunity should be extended to the appellant for personal hearing. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the appellant's request to convert shipping bill under drawback scheme to advance authorization scheme, the rejection of the request by the adjudicating authority based on Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.9.2010, and the subsequent appeal filed by the appellant challenging the rejection.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture and assembly of Spectacle Lens and industrial Metrology Equipment, imported "Semi Finished Spectacle lens" and manufactured spectacle lens for exporting from 2015 to 2020. They obtained advance authorizations during this period. The appellant decided to convert the business to 100% EOU and requested to convert shipping bill under drawback scheme to advance authorization scheme. The request was supported by relevant certificates from a Chartered Accountant and the GST authority confirming fulfillment of export promotion scheme conditions. The adjudicating authority rejected the request citing non-satisfaction of Circular No. 36/2010 conditions.

2. The learned counsel argued that the appellant fulfilled substantial export obligations despite the rejection based on Circular No. 36/2010. They cited a Kerala High Court judgment emphasizing that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. The counsel also referred to previous tribunal and high court decisions supporting conversion of shipping bills under various schemes.

3. The appellant provided documentary evidence, including certificates from a Chartered Accountant and the Central Tax Range Superintendent, to support their request for conversion. They highlighted previous decisions in similar cases to strengthen their argument for conversion.

4. The learned AR relied on judgments from various high courts to argue that amendments sought at a belated stage cannot be considered. However, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority did not adequately consider the documents produced by the appellant and the sustainability of Circular No. 36/2010 conditions.

5. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the conversion request and remanded the issue for de novo adjudication. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider the appellant's documents and decide on the conversion request, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing.

6. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the appellant's case for conversion of shipping bills under different schemes.

(Note: The summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key arguments, legal principles, and decisions made by the Tribunal.)