9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exporters of Sodium Silicate. They imported 1,000 MTs of Soda Ash (one of the raw materials) under a quantity based Advance Licence issued from the Directorate General of Foreigion Trade (DGFT, for short). They exported their final product (Sodium Silicate) towards discharge of export obligation in relation to the imported material. These exports were made under numerous Shipping Bills. 5 of these bills were filed after 18-12-2003, the date of expiry of the original validity period of the above licence the licence was subsequently renewed by DGFT up to 18-5-2004. The said 5 Shipping Bills, which were filed during the interregnum, were "Free Shipping Bills", which were the proper export documents to be filed in respect of normal exports, i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent appeal has been filed by the exporter, aggrieved by the above proceedings. 12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned proceedings are quasi judicial in nature and hence liable to be set aside on the ground of negation of natural justice. The request for conversion of Shipping Bills was declined without giving any opportunity of being heard. Ld. Counsel has claimed support from Final Order No. 1049/2004 dated 17-12-2004 [2005 (183) E.L.T. 157 Tribunal) passed by this Bench in Appeal No. C/350/2004/MAS M/s. Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai, to his plea that conversion of the Shipping Bills was liable to be allowed in the facts of the case. Reliance has also been placed on the Tribunal' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the said decision was in respect of conversion of Shipping Bills from one Export Promotion Scheme to another. The case of Smruti Pottery Works (supra) is also sought to be distinguished by submitting that the decision was rendered without considering the above Circular of the Board. 3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The grievance of the appellants is against refusal of conversion of "Free" Shipping Bills to "Advance Licence" Shipping Bills ("DEEC" Shipping Bills). The request for such conversion was made to the Commissioner of Customs, but its result was unfavourable. A further representation was made to the Commissioner and its outcome was communicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Exports) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f import and export documents. Normally, no such amendment will be allowed after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse or the export goods have been exported, as the case may be. However, there is an exception to this normal rule, which can be had from the proviso to Section 149. Accordingly, in respect of exports, if any documentary evidence, which was in existence at the time of export, is available (in support of a claim for amendment of any export document such as Shipping Bill) the export document could be allowed to be amended. It appears, this proviso was overlooked by the Board while issuing the above Circular and by the ld. Commissioner while taking the impugned decision. 5. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
