9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar, Dist. Kutch. That the petitioner no.1 is the Director of the aforesaid company. The said refinery is setup for the purpose of refining raw sugar and by that manufacturing white refined sugar for export market. That as the petitioner was required to import raw sugar in huge quantity and that once the same is refined, the refined white sugar was required to be exported out of India,the petitioner submitted an application for Advance Authorization before the respondent no.2. That Advance Authorization bearing No.0510383348 dated 1.4.2014 was issued to the petitioner no.2 by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Central Licensing Area, New Delhi. That under the said license, the petitioner no.2 was permitted to import 13249.950 MTs of raw sugar having cost insurance and freight (CIF) value of Rs. 35,73,52,500/for manufacture and export of 12619.00 MTs of white refined sugar having a Free On Board (FOB) value of Rs. 41,09,55,375/within a period of 18 months from the date import. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that after receiving the said Advance Authorization, the petitioner imported 10,599.950 MTs of raw sugar from Brazil which was imported through Kandla C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the shipping bill. It is the case of the petitioner that as a result of the same, though the exports were under advance authorization, as far as 2516.530 MTs are concerned, the shipping bill showed that the exports were under drawback scheme. 2.2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as it was electronically generated shipping bill and the entire system is online, automatically amount of drawback aggregating to Rs. 9,18,388.75 was credited to the account of the petitioner, however immediately on realizing their mistake the petitioner paid back/ given away the drawback amount of Rs. 9,18,388.75 vide Demand Draft dated 27.12.2014 along with interest to the credit of the Central Government at Kandla Customs House. It is submitted that therefore, although the aforesaid mistake was rectified properly, the petitioner was required to request the Customs Authorities to amend the shipping bill which was wrongly punched and therefore, the petitioner vide letter dated 30.12.2014 requested the Custom Authority at Kandla to amend the said shipping bill from drawback scheme to Advance Authorization scheme to enable them to take up the matter with the licensing authorities i.e. re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edi, learned advocate for the petitioner that in the present case right from very beginning the intention of the petitioner was to get the benefit under the Advance Authorization and in the shipping bill by mistake the same was punched as drawback scheme. It is submitted that in fact having realized such mistake the petitioner also returned the drawback amount which was credited to the account of the petitioner. It is submitted that therefore, considering Section 149 of the Customs Act, respondent ought to have permitted the petitioner to amend the shipping bill, more particularly, when the petitioner had as such export the entire quantity of 2650 MTs of sugar. 4.3. It is further submitted by Shri Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner that in the case of amendment of shipping bill where export goods have been exported the same is permissible only on the basis of documentary evidence which were in existence at the time of goods were exported. It is submitted that this is case where goods are already exported out of India, the respondent no.3 for the purpose of amending shipping bill in question was required to consider the documentary evidences only. It is submitted that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verified since shipping bill was not filed under DEEC scheme and now the verification is not possible as the materials are not available. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 6.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that it is the case of the petitioner that though they imported the goods under the shipping bill under the Advance Authorization Scheme, through oversight and by mistake it was punched as duty drawback. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that subsequently when they requested to amend the bill of entry, the case would fall under Section 149 of the Custom Act, which does not provide any limitation to make application to amend the shipping bill and therefore, the authorities are not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the same is not within the period of three months, relying upon board Circular No. 36 of 2010. Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Suzlon Energy Ltd (supra). Relying upon considering the decision of the Div ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
