9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. Arthur Prem, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri B.P. Pereira, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In this appeal filed by the party, we are concerned with the question whether the application made by them for conversion of drawback shipping bill to DEEC shipping bill was liable to be allowed by the respondent-Commissioner. 2. On a perusal of the records and on hearing both sides, we note that the appellant had filed a shipping bill on 22-9-2000 under claim for drawback against export of a welding machine for containers. Earlier, they had applied to the DGFT on 8-7-2000 for advance licence, after obtaining a proforma invoice from abroad and opening a Letter of Credit. The advance licence wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Customs (EP), wherein it was stated that conversion of the shipping bill, at that stage, was not possible as the goods had already been shipped and further that the case was not a fit case for such conversion. It appears, subsequently, the appellant received yet another letter from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, dated 19-12-2005 .wherein they were required to produce certain documents. The appellant is said to have produced these documents and awaited for the outcome. Having found no response, they sent a reminder to the Commissioner of Customs (EP) on 9-1-2006, which was received by the addressee on 10-1-2006. In this letter, the appellant furnished the list of documents required by the Assistant Commissioner. They also renewed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have retrospective effect and hence not applicable to the above request for conversion of shipping bill. The learned consultant, therefore, prays for a direction to the Commissioner to reconsider the said request in terms of the Public Notice No. 17/1990. 5. The learned JDR has opposed the above arguments. He submits that the appeal itself cannot be said to be maintainable inasmuch as the letter dated 20-1-1994 of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs communicating the Commissioner s decision to the appellant was not appealed against. What was contained in the letter dated 25-8-2006 was only a reminder of the above decision of the Commissioner. The JDR, significantly, points out that the Assistant Commissioner s letter dated 20-1-2004 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pealable order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of quasi-judicial power. This appeal is, therefore, maintainable. 7. It is not in dispute that, the appellant claimed conversion of shipping bill under Public Notice No. 17/1990 which laid down the factual situation in which such conversion could be permitted as well as the situations in which the benefit could not be allowed. The Circular No. 4/2004-Cus. which permitted conversion of shipping bill from one export promotion scheme to another, subject to specific conditions, superseded all previous circulars on the subject. In that process, obviously, the parent circular for the public notice also came to be superseded. The learned consultant has argued that supercession of the public n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
