9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod after the withdrawal of duty on crude oil) were not allowed for amendment/conversion. In the case of CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) VERSUS PARAYIL FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., THE UNION OF INDIA, JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE [ 2023 (1) TMI 1061 - KERALA HIGH COURT] , Hon ble High of Kerala held that ' The power and scope of Section 149 are wide and have serious ramifications both for the revenue and the importer/exporter. Therefore, it is in the realm or jurisdiction of respondents herein to make Section 149 operable as prescribed by regulations subject to such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the competent authority.' T he denial of amendment of 164 Shipping bills from Advance Authorisation Scheme to Duty Drawback Scheme was solely on the basis of time bar i.e., not seeking such amendment within 3(three) months of the Let Export Order (LEO) - there are catena of decisions, wherein the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Courts have held that the limitation of 3(three) months prescribed in Circular No.36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010 is not leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed under Advance Authorisation scheme into Duty Drawback Scheme. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore vide letter dated 01.08.2012 intimated that the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore had accorded permission for conversion of 286 shipping bills filed for the period from 27.03.2011 to 26.06.2011 from Advance Authorisation Scheme to Duty Drawback Scheme. However, as the appellant did not get any communication in respect of the status of the approval for conversion of the remaining shipping bills, the Appellant vide letter dated 12.12.2012 requested for conversion of remaining 164 shipping bills filed for the period from 01.03.2011 to 26.03.2011 and 27.06.2011 to 30.07.2011. The appellant was informed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore vide letter dated 03.04.2013 that the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore had rejected the request for conversion of shipping bills for the above periods on time bar by placing reliance on condition 3(a) of the Circular No.36/2010-Cus. dated 23.09.2010. Thereafter, the Appellant sought for personal hearing for contesting the rejection of conversion of shipping bills. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore vide l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - (2024) 15 Centax 73 (Tri.-Mad.) v. Pinnacle Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-283 vi. Colossustex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - (2023) 11 Centax 57 (Bom.) vii. Mohit Overseas Vs. CC 2016 (335) E.L.T. 18 (Del.) viii. VRA Cototn Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC., Jamnagar (Preventive) - 2014 (309) ELT 100 (Tri-Ahmd.) ix. Diamond Engineering (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (Seaport Export), Chennai 2013 (288) E.L.T. 265 (Tri. - Chennai) x. Carboline India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Final Order No. 40072/2022 dated 16.02.2022 passed by Chennai Tribunal in Appeal No. C/40606/2021 xi. Gupta Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs Final Order No. 40559-40561/2023 dated 17.07.2023 passed by Chennai Tribunal in Appeal Nos.40150-40152/2014. 5. The learned counsel submitted that, hence it was held that there is no time limit prescribed under Section 149 of the Customs Act. Therefore, the time limit prescribed under condition 3(a) of Circular No. 36/2010-Cus is untenable. In any case, the time limit requesting for amendment / conversion of shipping bills will start from the date of knowledge and not from the date of export itsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... looks more like guidelines for the Officers under section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the judgment under appeal does not warrant our interference. 6.1 We have taken note of the omission in excerpting Section 149 in the judgment under appeal. We have reproduced Section 149 of the Act effective from 1-8-2019 and tested the efficacy of Circular 36/2010 in the background of defined words under the Act. Circular No. 36/2010 cannot be construed as a regulation issued under the Act. The power and scope of Section 149 are wide and have serious ramifications both for the revenue and the importer/exporter. Therefore, it is in the realm or jurisdiction of respondents herein to make Section 149 operable as prescribed by regulations subject to such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the competent authority subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal fails and stands dismissed accordingly. 11. We find that the denial of amendment of 164 Shipping bills from Advance Authorisation Scheme to Duty Drawback Scheme was solely on the basis of time bar i.e., not seeking such amendment within 3(three) months of the Let Export Order (LEO). We find that there are catena of decisions, wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allow all industry Rate of duty drawback on goods exported under free shipping bills, without conversion of such free shipping bill to Drawback Scheme shipping bill, in terms of the proviso to rule 12(1) (a)of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. 5. Due care may be taken while allowing conversion to ensure that the exporter does not take benefit of both the schemes i.e. the scheme to which conversion is sought and the scheme from which conversion is sought. Whenever conversion of a shipping bill is allowed, the same should be informed to DGFT so that they may also ensure that the exporter does not take benefit of both the schemes. 6. This circular supersedes the Board circular No. 4/2004-Cus., dated 16-1-2004 and the earlier circulars issued in the past on this issue. This circular shall be applicable only to shipping bills filed on or after the date of issuance of this circular. Till such time as EDI system is modified to allow conversion of shipping bill in the EDI system, conversion may be allowed manually . 13. We find that in this case the conversion sought by the Appellant was from Advance Authorisation scheme shipping bills involving more rigorou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
