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 allows conversion/amendment of shipping bills from 2012-2014, upholds rejection for 2000-2011 due to delay.</h1> <h3>M/s. Autotech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs Chennai IV Commissionerate</h3> M/s. Autotech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs Chennai IV Commissionerate - 2022 (380) E.L.T. 364 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues Involved:1. Rejection of request for conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills.2. Barred by limitation as per CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus.3. Availability of documents at the time of export.4. Legal provisions under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 12 of Drawback Rules, 1995.5. Reasonability of delay in filing the request for conversion.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Request for Conversion:The appellant requested the conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs. The rejection was based on the grounds that the request was barred by limitation, the reason for omission was unsatisfactory, and the documents available at the time of export were not provided.2. Barred by Limitation:The appellant's request was considered time-barred according to CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus, which stipulates a three-month period from the date of the Let Export Order (LEO) for such requests. The appellant argued that neither Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 nor Rule 12(1)(a) of the Duty Drawback Rules provides for any time limit, indicating that the legislature did not intend to restrict the amendment of shipping bills by time.3. Availability of Documents:The appellant submitted that they had provided all necessary documents, including shipping bills, ARE-1 forms, and Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs). The Tribunal noted that the Show Cause Notice did not raise the issue of the absence of documents but focused on the time-barred nature of the request. The Tribunal held that the requirement under Section 149 is to produce documentary evidence in existence at the time of export, which the appellant had done.4. Legal Provisions under Section 149 and Rule 12:Section 149 allows for the amendment of shipping bills based on documentary evidence existing at the time of export. Rule 12(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules requires a declaration at the time of export, but the Commissioner has the discretion to exempt this requirement if the failure was due to reasons beyond the control of the exporter. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 149 does not prescribe a time limit for amendments and that the Board Circular cannot override the statutory provisions.5. Reasonability of Delay:The Tribunal acknowledged that while no specific time limit is prescribed under Section 149, requests for amendments should be made within a reasonable time. The Tribunal found that the appellant's request for shipping bills from 2000 to 2011 was unreasonably delayed, but the request for the period from 2012 to 2014 was within a reasonable time frame.Judgment:1. The rejection of the request for conversion/amendment of shipping bills for the period January 2012 to December 2014 was set aside, allowing the conversion with consequential reliefs.2. The rejection of the request for conversion/amendment of shipping bills for the period 2000 to 2011 was upheld due to unreasonable delay.The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the impugned order accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
