Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (12) TMI 1112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 015 for import of clear float glass and polyvinyl butyl, due to which there was an export obligation on the part of the appellant to export Double Layered Laminated Glass of the value of USD 498368.68. It is the case of the appellant that they fulfilled their export obligation by exporting the resultant final product vide 11 shipping bills tabulated at paragraph 3(b) of the impugned Order-in-Original. Vide communication dated 21.01.2016, after fulfilling its export obligation, the appellant filed an application with the Zonal Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) at Chennai for the issuance of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate ("EODC‟ for short), in response to which the Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade appears to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Customs, Chennai-IV, who, after affording personal hearings to the appellant-exporter, has, vide impugned Order-in-Original No. 91798/2022 dated 16.08.2022, held inter alia that the exporter had violated the conditions / procedures for conversion of shipping bills provided under paragraph 3 of the Board Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 and that the request for Scheme Code conversion was made after five years; that the fact of use of imported inputs under Advance Authorization was not proved in the export of the final products and therefore, the request of the appellant was not permissible even under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Heard Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Smt. Sridevi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l the appellant-exporter approached the Hon‟ble High Court and hence, the delay cannot be attributed to the appellant-exporter alone. The appellant has established its bona fides; but for the inaction by the DGFT, perhaps there would not have been any delay in seeking conversion/ amendment under Section 149 ibid. Vide letter dated 21.01.2016 itself the appellant did communicate to the DGFT for issuance of EODC by contending that it had fulfilled the export obligation, in response to which the said authority had replied on 25.01.2016 asking for bank realization certificates and, if at all there were any deficiencies, nothing prevented the said authority from communicating the same to the appellant-exporter. 8. In view of the above, I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he decision does not indicate as to why the request has been refused. We find that the essential requirements in the Board's Circular for conversion of Shipping Bills from one scheme to another have been fulfilled by the appellant. Further, we also find that a similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Kiran Pondy Chems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2006 (203) E.L.T. 588 (Tri.-Chennai)] and in that case also, the conversion was allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that in the ARE-1 form, there was a certification from the Superintendent certifying that the export took place under his supervision and the documents were existing at the time of export. It is to be noted that when this decision was rendered the Bo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the request for conversion on the ground that physical examination was not conducted before export is without any legal basis." 9.4 Learned Advocate for the appellant also seriously contended that the period of limitation for filing an application seeking conversion within the meaning of Section 149 ibid. has not been provided under Section 149, but the same has only been provided in the Board Circular No. 36/2010 ibid. and the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court (M/s. Global Calcium Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vide judgement dated 29.06.2017 in C.M.A. No. 875 of 2017) as well as the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala (M/s. Parayil Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 2020 (10) TMI 1141 - Kerala High Court) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates