<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (8) TMI 1673 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464688</link>
    <description>Post-export conversion of shipping bills from the Advance Authorization scheme to the Duty Drawback scheme may be permitted under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 where contemporaneous documentary evidence existed at the time of export. The Tribunal held that a three-month time limit in Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. could not defeat conversion where the statute, as then applicable, did not impose that limitation. It further held that conversion could not be denied merely for alleged deficiency of evidence when shipping bills, export invoices, and authorization records were available, particularly for factory-stuffed and self-sealed consignments. An appellate authority also could not introduce a new ground beyond the basis of the original rejection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 19:08:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=863548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 1673 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464688</link>
      <description>Post-export conversion of shipping bills from the Advance Authorization scheme to the Duty Drawback scheme may be permitted under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 where contemporaneous documentary evidence existed at the time of export. The Tribunal held that a three-month time limit in Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. could not defeat conversion where the statute, as then applicable, did not impose that limitation. It further held that conversion could not be denied merely for alleged deficiency of evidence when shipping bills, export invoices, and authorization records were available, particularly for factory-stuffed and self-sealed consignments. An appellate authority also could not introduce a new ground beyond the basis of the original rejection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>