9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad not declared their intention to claim DEPB benefit and in their application and after issue of CBEC Circular No.6/2003-Cus, dt.28.01.2003, they applied for conversion of shipping bills to DEPB shipping bills, so that they can get the benefit of DEPB scheme. This application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner (Customs Division) Porbandar, relying upon the CBEC Circular No.4/2004-Cus, dt.16.1.2004. According to this circular, request for conversion of free shipping bills to DEPB shipping bills was not permitted. The applications had been filed on 26.12.2003 and rejection was communicated on 18.5.2006. The appellants approached Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat against rejection of their request and Hon'ble High Court directed Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to follow the requirements of Public notice and they also failed to furnish declaration which was required to be filed with shipping bills for claiming DEPB and such requirement was known to the appellant even before filing the shipping bills. Since the appellant failed to file the required declaration which would have enabled the authorities to know the inputs used and the eligibility or otherwise for DEPB benefit, the impugned order rejecting the conversion, is legal and proper. Further, he also submitted that the requirements in a Public notice, which have not been fulfilled are substantive ones viz. the export could not have taken place from Porbandar prior to 24.2.97 since Porbandar was not a notified Port for the purpose of export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B shipping bills. Ld.Consultant submitted that the notification issued on 22.4.97 including Porbandar, has to be considered as one having retrospective effect. In view of the different requirements for assessment these shipping bills and other shipping bills, which we can see from the subsequent discussion in this order, it cannot be said that the declaration of Porbandar as a port for DEPB shipping bills, can have retrospective effect. Neither the officers nor the exporters would be knowing all these requirements, if Porbandar itself was not a specified port. Therefore, rejection of request for conversion on the ground that the Porbandar port was not a declared port, has to be upheld. 6. As regards remaining shipping bills, the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
