Tribunal Denies Amendment of Shipping Bill for DEPB Benefits Due to Six-Year Delay in Request Submission.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's request to amend the shipping bill to qualify for DEPB benefits, as the request was made six years after the export. Despite the absence of a specific time limit under Section 149 of the Customs Act 1962, the Tribunal emphasized the need for requests to be made within a reasonable period. The decision was supported by precedents and judgments, including those from the HC of Delhi, affirming that the department cannot be expected to entertain such delayed requests. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 07.12.2023.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues in the present appeal involve the amendment of the Shipping Bill for export of goods, denial of benefit of DEPB due to change in product description, and the time limit for seeking such amendments under Section 149 of the Customs Act 1962.

Amendment of Shipping Bill:
The appellant exported "Calcium Hypocloride Chlorine content more than 60" under a different description, "Calcium Hypocloride Hydrated," due to difficulties in exporting under the original heading. The benefit of DEPB was denied to the appellant because of this change in description. Despite obtaining an amendment from DGFT to correct the product description to "Calcium Hypochlorite Hydrated," the request to amend the shipping bill was denied by the adjudicating authority, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

Legal Arguments and Precedents:
The appellant argued that the delay in seeking the amendment was due to addressing the issue with DGFT before requesting the shipping bill amendment. Citing the case of M/s. Sologuard Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai, the appellant contended that circulars debarring such conversions should not be a ground to deny export incentives. Reference was also made to previous Tribunal findings in cases such as Areva T&D India Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai and CARBOLINE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-IV. Additionally, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the matter of PARAYIL FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA was highlighted.

Adjudication and Decision:
The Authorized Representative argued that despite no specific time limit for amending shipping bills, the request should be supported by examination of records. The appellant had exported goods under 20 shipping bills between June 2005 and October 2005 but sought an amendment only in August 2011. The AR emphasized that a delay of over 5 years without reasonable grounds was not justifiable. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a similar case and held that requests for conversion should be made within a reasonable period. The Tribunal also considered previous cases like CARBOLINE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-IV to support the decision.

Tribunal's Decision:
After hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the request to convert the shipping bill from free to DEPB shipping bill, made six years after the export of goods, was not justified. The Tribunal highlighted that the department cannot be expected to entertain such requests after such a prolonged period, despite the absence of a specific time limit under Section 149. Citing various judgments and precedents, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order rejecting the request for amending the shipping bill.

Conclusion:
Based on the facts presented and legal arguments made, the appeal was rejected by the Tribunal, and the order was pronounced on 07.12.2023.

---