Tribunal grants conversion from free to Advance Authorization shipping for Double Layered Laminated Glass exporter

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and permitted the conversion from free shipping bills to Advance Authorization shipping bills for the exporter of Double Layered Laminated Glass. The rejection of the conversion request by the Commissioner of Customs was deemed unjustified, as the appellant had fulfilled the essential requirements for conversion and the delay in seeking conversion was not solely attributable to the appellant. The Tribunal found the denial of the conversion request to be legally flawed and set it aside, granting the requested Scheme Code change for the four shipping bills.

---

---

Issues:
Request for Scheme Code change from "00-Free Shipping Bill" to "03-Advance Authorization Shipping Bill" for four shipping bills.

Analysis:
The appellant, an exporter of "Double Layered Laminated Glass," sought a Scheme Code change for four shipping bills from "00-Free Shipping Bill" to "03-Advance Authorization Shipping Bill." The appellant had an Advance Authorization for import, leading to an export obligation to export Double Layered Laminated Glass. After fulfilling the export obligation, the appellant applied for an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) from the DGFT, which was not issued due to alleged deficiencies in the shipping bills. The Commissioner of Customs rejected the conversion request citing violations of procedures and conditions under Board Circular No. 36/2010. The main issue was whether the rejection of the conversion request was justified.

The Tribunal analyzed the documents and shipping bills submitted by the appellant. It noted that the appellant had filed the shipping bills in anticipation of receiving the Advance Authorization. The Tribunal found that the delay in seeking conversion was not solely attributable to the appellant, as the DGFT did not issue the EODC promptly despite the appellant's communication. The Tribunal concluded that there was no delay as per the Board Circular.

Further, the Tribunal examined the Form A.R.E.-1 and found that both the Central Excise Officer and the Customs Officer had certified the relevant packages under the disputed shipping bills. Referring to precedents, including a decision by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal and a Chennai Bench case, the Tribunal highlighted that the essential requirements for conversion had been fulfilled by the appellant. It also emphasized that the rejection based on physical examination requirements and time limitations specified in the Board Circular was legally unsustainable.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's denial of the conversion request, deeming it legally flawed. The appeal was allowed, and the conversion from free shipping bills to Advance Authorization shipping bills was permitted.

---