9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 was issued on 25-7-2000 and the same was received by the appellant on 13-9-2000. However, the appellant chose to file shipping bill dated 22-9-2000 under claim for drawback rather than under DEEC scheme. Today, it is sought to be explained that there was some communication gap between the appellant and their CHA and that is why the shipping bill could not be filed on 22-9-2000 under DEEC scheme. 3. In the circumstances of the case, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 their request for conversion of the shipping bill. Apparently, in response to this request, the Commissioner of Customs (EP) held a personal hearing on 23-8-2006 and issued a letter dated 25-8-2006 intimating that the request for conversion of shipping bill had already been considered and rejected and that the decision could not be reviewed or reconsidered. The present appeal is directed against this communication received by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant 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 clearly stated the reason why the Commissioner had rejected the appellant's request for conversion of shipping bill. According to the JDR, the Assistant Commissioner's letter dated 20-1-2004 was very much appealable. In the absence of such appeal, the present appeal filed against the Commissioner's letter dated 25-8-2006 will not be maintainable. This apart, the learned DR has also vehemently argued that the Circular No. 4/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermitted 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 notice did not have retrospective effect and the learned DR has argued to the contra. We are of the view that this aspect must be agitated before the Commissioner. Let the learned Commissioner consider the pros and cons of the whole matter and take a fresh decision on the appellant's application for conversion of shipping bill on merits, after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We would request the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
