TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Shipping Bill Conversion</h1> <h3>METALLIC BELLOWS (I) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI</h3> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to reject the conversion of shipping bills under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants failed to mention ... - Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of conversion of shipping bills u/s 149 of Customs Act, 1962.Summary:The appeal was made against the rejection of conversion of shipping bills under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants exported Metallic Expansion Bellow under Free Shipping Bills but later sought conversion due to a procedural lapse in not indicating the license number. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration. The appellants provided evidence to support their request, citing past instances where similar conversions were allowed. However, the Commissioner rejected the conversion, leading to the appeal.The Tribunal considered the submissions and evidence from both sides. The appellants received the advance license before filing the shipping bills but failed to mention it, claiming they were not regular exporters. The Tribunal noted a previous case where a similar conversion was allowed, but emphasized that the omission posed a risk to revenue as goods under free shipping bills were not examined. The Commissioner's decision was deemed not arbitrary, as the exercise of power under Section 149 is discretionary.The requirement to claim export under a scheme was to enable necessary checks by customs authorities, which was not possible in this case due to the free shipping bills. The certificates provided by the jurisdictional Central Excise officer and DGFT authorities were considered untimely and not relevant to the export process. The Tribunal emphasized that past favorable decisions did not create a binding precedent, and the appellants should have learned from previous experiences. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, upholding the Commissioner's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
