9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 806 - AT - CustomsManner in which export consignments dealt with by the customs authorities during the period between in principle debonding and the final exit in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) - appellant had sought formal approval for conversion of shipping bills from that of export oriented unit (EOU) scheme to that under claim for drawback appear to have been rejected on non-compliance with the stipulation in circular no. 36/2010-Cus dated 23rd September 2010 of Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC). HELD THAT - As decided in M/S SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT LTD 2022 (9) TMI 1583 - CESTAT MUMBAI in view of the settled position, elaborated in Haldiram Foods International Pvt Ltd, 2020 (12) TMI 1229 - CESTAT MUMBAI on the irrelevance of the deadline stipulated in the circular of Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC) relied upon in the impugned order, we set aside the rejection of the applications for amendment and direct the original authority to decide the matter afresh within the framework of section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 on the propriety of the changes sought for in the shipping bills. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed off. Furthermore, it has been brought to our notice that, on the same set of facts and circumstances, the competent authority had rejected these 155 bills pertaining to exports through Nhava Sheva while those effected through ICD Bhamboli and ICD Talegaon had been allowed. We set aside the impugned order and restore the application back to the original authority for disposal in accordance with law as prevailing at the relevant time.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) regarding export consignments during transition period. 2. Rejection of application for conversion of shipping bills from EOU scheme to drawback claim under Customs Act, 1962. 3. Compliance with circular [no. 36/2010-Cus dated 23rd September 2010] of CBEC. 4. Application for amendment made after the 'let export order (LoP)' in breach of circular [no. 36/2010-Cus dated 23rd September 2010]. 5. Relevance of deadline stipulated in circulars of CBEC in decision-making process. Analysis: The judgment of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai dealt with the limited issue of how the export consignments of the appellant were handled by customs authorities during the transition period between 'in principle debonding' and 'final exit' as per the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). The appellant, an export-oriented unit (EOU), had obtained a 'letter of permission (LoP)' and sought exit from the scheme, informing the customs authorities about the proposed debonding. The appellant had made numerous exports during this period, intending to claim drawback on them. The final debonding was ordered after the issuance of a 'no due certificate' by the customs authorities. The appellant sought approval for converting shipping bills from the EOU scheme to a drawback claim under section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the application for these amendments was rejected based on non-compliance with circular [no. 36/2010-Cus dated 23rd September 2010] of CBEC. The appellant argued that before the Finance Act, 2019, there was no provision for such instructions from CBIC, and the restrictions imposed by CBEC were contrary to law. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision that held such restrictions without enabling empowerment were illegal. The Tribunal, referencing the case of Seco Tools India Pvt Ltd, set aside the rejection of the application for amendments and directed the original authority to reconsider the matter under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was emphasized that the deadline stipulated in circulars of CBEC should not be the sole determining factor in decision-making processes. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the treatment of bills related to exports through different locations and ordered the restoration of the application to the original authority for proper disposal in accordance with the law applicable at the relevant time. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 8th November 2024.
|
