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 Denies Amendment of Shipping Bill for DEPB Benefits Due to Six-Year Delay in Request Submission.</h1> <h3>M/s. SREE RAYALASEEMA HI-STRENGTH HYPO LTD. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin</h3> 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. ... Request to amend the shipping bill for converting free shipping bill to DEPB shipping bill denied - time limit prescribed for amendment of the shipping bill or not - HELD THAT:- While considering the issue the Tribunal in the matter of M/S. CARBOLINE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [2022 (2) TMI 745 - CESTAT CHENNAI], observed that the exporter realise the mistake in two shipping bills dated 18.04.2018 and 02.05.2018 and request was made for amendment vide letter dated 19.08.2020. In the above circumstances the Tribunal held that ” When the statute does not prescribe any time limit for filing an application for conversion of a shipping bill, the department cannot rely upon a circular to frustrate the provisions contained in the statute. When there is a conflict, the statute will definitely prevail over the Board circular. Though it is admitted that the circular No.36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 fixing time limit of 3 Months is not proper, as held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) VERSUS E.S. LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. [2019 (11) TMI 736 - DELHI HIGH COURT], merely because no time limitation is prescribed under Section 149 for the purpose of seeking amendment/conversion, it does not follow that a request in that regard could be made after passage of any length of time. The request by the appellant was to convert shipping bill from free to advance license shipping bill. The Respondent cannot entertain such request for conversion without examination of the records. It is not fair to expect the department to consider the request for such amendment after 5 long years. Thus there is no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the request for amending shipping bill for converting free shipping bill to DEPB shipping bill 6 years after export of goods. The appeal is rejected. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
