Shipping bill amendment and DEPB benefit: bona fide omission can be corrected when contemporaneous records support the intended export scheme.

Where export documents and contemporaneous declarations show the intended export promotion scheme, a bona fide omission in the shipping bill may be corrected by conversion under the governing customs circular if the prescribed conditions are met. On the facts described, the omission of DEPB was treated as a procedural lapse, the request for post-export amendment was made within time, and the material on record supported compliance with the circular. The refusal to permit conversion was therefore unsustainable. A quasi-judicial endorsement denying DEPB benefit was also held to be appealable because it had the direct effect of refusing fiscal relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner's rejection of the request to amend the shipping bills from Zero Duty EPCG to EPCG and DEPB (post export) was justified under the applicable circular; (ii) Whether the impugned decision of the Commissioner was appealable.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner's rejection of the request to amend the shipping bills from Zero Duty EPCG to EPCG and DEPB (post export) was justified under the applicable circular.

Analysis: The shipping bills mentioned only Zero Duty EPCG, but the contemporaneous ARE-1 documents and the exporter's declaration showed that the exports were intended to be under the EPCG and DEPB scheme. The omission of 'DEPB' in the shipping bills was treated as a genuine mistake by the CHA and a procedural lapse. The request was examined under paragraph 3.2 of Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., which permits conversion of shipping bills from one export promotion scheme to another when the prescribed conditions are satisfied. The request was made within the prescribed time, and the material on record supported fulfilment of the remaining conditions. The Commissioner had recorded no adequate basis for holding otherwise.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit conversion was unsustainable, and the shipping bills were liable to be amended by substituting EPCG and DEPB (post export) for Zero Duty EPCG.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned decision of the Commissioner was appealable.

Analysis: The Commissioner's endorsement on the exporter's letter was a decision taken after hearing the parties and in discharge of a quasi-judicial function. It had the direct consequence of denying the DEPB benefit and was therefore not a mere administrative note. Such a decision fell within the appellate jurisdiction under the Customs Act.

Conclusion: The impugned decision was appealable.

Final Conclusion: The exporter was entitled to have the shipping bills corrected so as to claim DEPB benefit, and the departmental refusal was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the export documents and contemporaneous declarations establish the intended export promotion scheme, a bona fide omission in the shipping bill may be corrected by conversion under the governing circular if the prescribed conditions are met; a quasi-judicial refusal affecting fiscal benefit is appealable.

---