Section 149 of the Customs Act prevails over circular-based time limits for shipping bill conversion where contemporaneous evidence exists.

A departmental circular prescribing a three-month limit for conversion of shipping bills cannot override Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, where amendment is supported by documentary evidence existing at the time of export. The Tribunal treated the circular as administrative guidance only and held that the later Shipping Bill (Post Export Conversion in relation to Instrument based Scheme) Regulations, 2022, which allowed a longer conversion period, reinforced that the circular-based time bar was not decisive. As the request involved conversion from Advance Authorisation to Duty Drawback and the statutory conditions were otherwise met, refusal on limitation grounds was unsustainable and conversion was to be allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of conversion of shipping bills from Advance Authorisation Scheme to Duty Drawback Scheme on the ground of limitation prescribed in Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. was legally sustainable, and whether the conversion request could be considered under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the light of the later 2022 Regulations.

Analysis: The rejection was founded solely on the premise that the request for conversion was made beyond three months from the Let Export Order. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits amendment of shipping documents on the basis of documentary evidence in existence at the time of export, and the Tribunal treated the Board circular as administrative guidance that could not curtail the statutory width of that provision. The Tribunal also noted that the Shipping Bill (Post Export Conversion in relation to Instrument based Scheme) Regulations, 2022, introduced by Notification No. 11/2022-Cus. (N.T.) dated 22.02.2022, contemplated a longer period for conversion, reinforcing that the restrictive three-month limit in the circular was not determinative. The request concerned conversion from a more rigorous examination scheme to a less rigorous one, and the Tribunal held that the circular-based time bar could not justify refusal where the statutory conditions were otherwise met.

Conclusion: The rejection of conversion on the ground of time bar was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to conversion of the shipping bills.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned refusal to permit post-export conversion was set aside, with consequential relief as permissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental circular prescribing a time limit for amendment or conversion of shipping bills cannot override Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and conversion may be allowed where the statutory requirements are satisfied on the basis of contemporaneous documentary evidence.

---