Conversion of shipping bills cannot be refused solely on a circular-based delay limit where no statutory time bar exists.

Where the statute did not prescribe a specific time limit for converting shipping bills from the DFIA/advance authorisation scheme to the drawback scheme, the Tribunal held that a circular-based three-month restriction could not operate as an absolute bar. It applied the general law of limitation on a reasonable, case-specific basis, indicating that conversion requests may be examined within a broader period and that condonation can depend on the circumstances. The Tribunal also directed consideration of the impact of COVID-19 guidelines. The rejection based solely on delay was not sustained, and the matter was remanded for fresh examination by the lower authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the request for conversion of shipping bills from DFIA/advance authorisation scheme to drawback scheme on the ground of delay was sustainable, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the lower authority.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier view that where no specific period is prescribed in the statute for such conversion, the three-month restriction in the circular cannot be applied as an absolute bar. It treated the general law of limitation as applicable and regarded a period up to three years as a reasonable period, with scope for consideration of condonation depending on the circumstances. The Tribunal also noted the impact of COVID-19 and directed that any applicable benefit of the general law of limitation and COVID guidelines be examined by the lower authority.

Conclusion: The rejection on limitation was not sustained and the matter was required to be reconsidered.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the dispute was sent back for fresh consideration by the lower authority.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a specific statutory time limit, a conversion request cannot be rejected merely by applying a circular-based three-month restriction, and the request must be examined under the general law of limitation on a reasonable and case-specific basis.

---