9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting that DGFT Public Notice dated 21-8-1998 was not in existence at the time of export of goods. It is rather obvious that the public notice dated 21-8-1998 was not in existence earlier and hence the public notice specifically states that it retrospectively covers shipments earlier made from 1-4-1997 to 14-4-1998. This public notice has been issued by the DGFT in the public interest consciously a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. The matter was remanded by the Tribunal earlier vide its order dated 22-6-2010 to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs with the following observation :- 2. The Commissioner has rejected the request of the exporters for conversion of Free Shipping Bills into DEPB Shipping Bills. During the period of export i.e. between 1-4-1997 and 14-4-1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existence at the time when the goods were exported is well founded in the light of the fact that the Notice of August, 1998 covers exports during the prior period of April, 1997 to April, 1998. It is for the Commissioner to consider the request for amendment on the basis of the Public Notice and pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt s decision for grant of a retrospective benefit would be defeated as in no case of any exporter, conditions sought to be satisfied by the jurisdictional Commissioner could be fulfilled. That would be detrimental to the public interest which has been specifically invoked while issuing the relevant public notice dated 21-8-1998. Hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
