9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ping bills, the request for conversion of the shipping bills was considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/S. AUTOTECH INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CHENNAI IV COMMISSIONERATE [ 2021 (11) TMI 518 - CESTAT CHENNAI] , the Tribunal held that if the request is made within reasonable time of three years, the conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills can be allowed. The request for conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills has to be allowed. However, since the application for conversion is filed on 23.11.2017 in regard to the shipping bills for the period 2013-14 to 2016-17, the period of limitation as set out in the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Autotech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. will apply. Hence, the shipping bills beyond the period of three years will not be eligible for conversion. For the limited purpose of looking into the shipping bills which are beyond the limitation period of three years, when computed from the date of application i.e., 23.11.2017, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No. 40246 of 2021 - FINAL ORDER NO. 42456 / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms exported were produced before the Adjudicating Authority. A committee was constituted for looking into the samples as well as related documents of exports made during the disputed period. The committee reported that on visual examination of old and new items, the goods appeared to be made of 60% or more of visible outer / inner surface leather That the description of old and new items are the same. Further that the product code as mentioned in the export invoices tallied with the stock code mentioned in the purchase orders. However, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the request for conversion of the shipping bills on the ground that the appellant had not put forward plausible explanation for not filing the drawback shipping bills at the time of exports itself. Aggrieved by such order of rejection of the request for conversion of the shipping bills, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 5.1 Shri T. Ramesh, Learned Advocate, appeared and argued for the appellant. He submitted that the merchandiser who was handling the exports made to M/s. Aspinal of London was not aware of the drawback procedure and did not file declaration, as required, along with the shipping bills to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Mumbai-II reported in 2016 (343) E.L.T. 599 (Tri. Mumbai) as well as M/s. Polydrug Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C. (General), Mumbai reported in 2015 (317) E.L.T. 271 (Tri. Mumbai) were also relied by him. 5.4 Shri S. Balakumar, Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue, supported the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The issue involved is as to whether the rejection of the request for conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills is legal and proper. 8. In paragraphs 15 and 16 of the impugned order, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority had constituted a committee to examine the documents related to the exports as well as the samples produced by the appellant to ensure that the goods exported to the foreign company during the disputed period were one and the same. The relevant paragraphs read as under: 15. Vide this office s email dated 21.12.2019, the exporter was granted one more personal hearing to appear before the Commissioner of Customs on 24.12.2019 at 4.30 PM. Shri R. Sriram, CEO of the Company Shri A.C.S. Mutho, CHA, M/s. Shree Shuba Associates have appeared for the personal hearing before the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the item samples were found to be made of 60% more of visible outer / outer inner surface leather; that it cannot be ascertained as to whether the same items were exported or not since the export cargo has already left not available; that the said 6 samples were retained for future reference; that the produce code as mentioned in the export invoices have tallied with stock code of the item mentioned in purchase orders. 9. However, in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the impugned order, the Commissioner has relied upon Board Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. dated 23.09.2010 to hold that the appellant has not been able to satisfactorily explain the reasons for not filing the drawback shipping bills at the time of export. It is held in paragraph 24 that though the exporter has tried to prove that the goods exported were articles of leather, as described in the export documents, it would not be appropriate to extend the substantial benefit of drawback when they have not put forward proper reasons for not filing drawback shipping bills. This observation of the Adjudicating Authority is without any substance. 10. The law, as stated in Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, allows amendment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for amendment under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. We then have to consider what would be the reasonable period for entertaining an application under section 149 of the Customs. 41. The Customs Act, 1962 being a special law and a complete code in itself it would not be proper to pull in the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963 and make it applicable to section 149. More so, because section 149 does not deal with any recovery of duty or refund of duty. It is a section merely to permit amendment in documents. Amendment is purely a procedural requirement. The legislature in its wisdom has not prescribed either in the Act or Rules a time limit to fulfill this procedural requirement. The consequence of such amendment as already stated, is to claim refund of duty suffered on inputs in the nature of drawback. The Limitation Act limits the period for filing a suit for recovery of money to three years. As per Article 137 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 any application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere is three years from the time when the right to apply accrues. We are unable to refrain ourselves from being not persuaded by these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
