Shipping bill conversion under Customs law cannot be time-barred by imported limitation; circulars cannot override statutory rights.

Section 149 of the Customs Act does not prescribe a time limit for amendment or conversion of shipping bills on documentary proof, so a 3-year limit imported from Article 137 of the Limitation Act could not be read into that provision. The article also states that Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. could not override the statute to bar conversion from drawback to DFIA, and prior availing of drawback was not treated as an absolute prohibition. Conversion was described as permissible subject to reversal of the drawback with applicable interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 3-year limitation period imported from Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 could be applied to conversion of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether conversion from drawback scheme to DFIA scheme could be denied on the basis of Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. and the alleged prior availment of drawback benefit.

Issue (i): Whether the 3-year limitation period imported from Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 could be applied to conversion of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not prescribe any time limit for conversion of shipping bills and permits amendment on the basis of documentary evidence. The rule in M.P. Steel Corporation was applied to hold that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 operate in respect of court proceedings and are not automatically attracted to proceedings before a Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority. In the absence of an express statutory limitation, a fixed 3-year outer limit could not be read into Section 149 for conversion requests.

Conclusion: The imported 3-year limitation was inapplicable, and rejection of the conversion request on that ground was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether conversion from drawback scheme to DFIA scheme could be denied on the basis of Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. and the alleged prior availment of drawback benefit.

Analysis: The restriction in the circular could not prevail over Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 when the statute itself did not impose such a bar. The conversion was from drawback to an export promotion scheme, and the prior grant of drawback was treated as reversible rather than as a statutory bar to conversion. The record also showed that the shipping bills had been examined through the system, and the conversion was found permissible subject to reversal of drawback with applicable interest.

Conclusion: The conversion could not be refused on the basis of the circular or prior drawback availment, and the request was valid subject to reversal of drawback with interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the rejection of conversion beyond three years was set aside, and the shipping bills were directed to be converted from drawback to DFIA scheme upon compliance with reversal of drawback and interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent statute prescribes no limitation for amendment or conversion, a time bar cannot be introduced by importing the Limitation Act or by circular, and a subordinate administrative instruction cannot curtail a statutory right to seek conversion supported by documentary proof.

---