9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch of this Tribunal in case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs [ 2019 (11) TMI 1338 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] where it was held that the request for conversion of the shipping bill cannot be disallowed by pressing into the application of time limit prescribed by the Board in its circular dated 23.9.2010. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is being set aside - The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority for conversion of free shipping bills to EPCG shipping bill. - HON BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri B K Singh and Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocates - for the appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative - for the respondent ORDER BIJAY KUMAR: 1. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Inland Container Depot (ICD TKD), New Delhi, vide which a request of M/s Isolloyd Engineering Technologies Limited (the Appellant) for conversion of fourteen shipping bills from free shipping bills under scheme Code 00 to Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG) under scheme Code 11 was denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port promotion scheme claimed by the exporter was denied to him by DGFT/DOC or Customs due to any dispute or not. The conversion may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 on a case to case basis on merits provided the Commissioner of Customs is satisfied, on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were exported, that the goods were eligible for the export promotion scheme to which conversion has been requested . Further, said circular also categorically stipulates, The request for conversion is made by the exporter within three months from the date of the Let Export Order (LEO) . 4.4 I find that the exporter has made the present request for conversion of Shipping Bills on 11.10.2018, which is not within the prescribed period of three month from the date of LEO. The Let Export Orders in the impugned shipping bills are between 04.07.2006 to 16.02.2013. thus there has been considerable delay in making this request, and no valid grounds have been ascribed for the same. Moreover I also find that there is no provisions for condoning the delay filing such request. Hence the request is untenable. 4.5 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was no time limit for filing of application for amendment in the Shipping Bill or Bill of Entry. (a) Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumbai Vs PEETEE Coach Builders (p) Ltd. reported in 2018 (363) ELT 176 (Tri.-Mum) (Para 5) (b) Pratibha Pipes Structural (P) Ltd. Vs Commr. Of Customs (Exp), Mumbai reported in 2014 (314) ELT 161 (Tri.-Mumbai) (Para 3, 4 and 5) (c) Pasha International vs CC Tuticorin reported in 2019 (365) ELT 669 (Mad.). The Hon ble Madras High Court held that even if the documents to be amended could not be retrieved for amendment as those were filed electronically, it will be sufficient if the Commissioner issues a certificate certifying that the Shipping Bills as mentioned in his Order were indeed eligible for benefit of the scheme as claimed. (d) Saurabh Overseas Traders Vs CC, Cochin reported in 2017 (356) ELT 463 (Tri.-Bang). It was held in Para 4 that amendment could be allowed based on the documents which were in existence at the time of filing of the Shipping Bills. (e) Man Industries (india) Ltd. Vs CC (EP), Mumbai reported in 2006 (202) ELT 433 (Tri.-Mumbai) (Para 2.1 2.2). This Order has been approved by the Hon ble Mumbai High Court as reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant to obtain the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) from the DGFT. This fact has also been clearly mentioned in the original application dated 18.08.2018 filed by the Appellant before the Dy/Asst. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad. Ld. Advocate also referred to the other grounds which the appellant had taken in the grounds of appeal. 5. The learned Authorized Representative relied on CBEC circular no. 36/2010-Customs dated 23.09.2010 which provides that: The Commissioner may allow conversion of shipping bills from schemes involving more rigorous examination to schemes involving less rigorous examination (for example, from Advance Authorization/DFIA scheme to Drawback/DEPB scheme) or within the schemes involving same level of examination (for example from Drawback scheme to DEPB scheme or vice versa) irrespective of whether the benefit of an export promotion scheme claimed by the exporter was denied to him by DGFT/DOC or Customs due to any dispute or not. It is his submission that the Commissioner is bound by the Circular issued by the CBEC. He also stated that the documents referred to by the appellant for proving that the exported goods were in fact produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Circular to hold that since the let export order is issued beyond the time limit of three months, the request for conversion of the shipping bill cannot be granted. During the relevant period there was no provision under the Customs Act, 1962 prescribing the time limit for conversion of the shipping bill. Further, in the case of Global Calcium Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the request of the assessee was for conversion of the free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills. The Tribunal after considering the submissions observed that the time limit specified in the above circular cannot be applied to deny the request for conversion of the free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills. In the present case, it is for conversion from Advance Authorization scheme to duty drawback scheme. The decision of the Tribunal though appealed by the assessee before the Hon'ble High Court as the assessee entertained a view that the adjudicating authority may subject to the claim of conversion to the Board circular dated 23.9.2010, the Hon'ble High Court observed in para 2 that the Tribunal having clearly held that the time limit provision will not apply, there is no scope for interfering the order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
