TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (11) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bonds), Chennai, the request of M/s. K.L.J. Plastics for conversion of exbond by the Bill of Entry for clearance under DEEC scheme after expiry of bond period had been rejected. 2.  Heard Shri R. Sasidharan, ld. Advocate and Ms. L. Mythili, ld. Advocate for appellants and Shri S. Kannan and Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, ld. DRs. 3.  The issue involved is whether the denial of coverting Bill of Entry importing 33 tonnes HDPE granules on 15-4-1997 and warehoused on 4-8-1995 was correct in law. This denial was on the ground that their application for conversion under DEEC scheme was received much after the expiry of the warehoused period on 3-8-1996 , whereas the appellants had filed exbond Bill of Entry on 17-8-1995 for clearance for h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals) to the Asstt. Commissioner which finally led to the issue of the Order-in-Original noted above rejecting the assessment under the DEEC scheme. As the appellants appeal was also rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned , they are before us in appeal. 4.  Heard Shri R. Sashidharan, ld. Advocate and Ms. L. Mythili, ld. Advocate for appellants and Shri S. Kannan, ld. DR & Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, ld. DR for Revenue. 5.  Ld. Advocate submits that since the notice under Section 72 was issued on 19-11-1998 much after the appellants' request for conversion of the exbond Bill of Entry for assessment under the DEEC scheme (made on 3-6-1998) , therefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Processors as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under still customs custody can be cleared on Advance Licence issued subsequently . Ld. Advocate further submitted that any notice under Section 72 do not change the status of the appellants as the owners of the goods in customs bond. Since the goods having been confiscated they were entitled to clearance under the DEEC scheme. 6. Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the issue is no longer res integra as the same has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon as in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 464 (S.C.). He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the said judgment considered in detail the effect of the expiry of the bonded period on goods bonded under the customs bond and have ruled that on the expiry of the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmissions and records of the case. 8.  We cannot accede to ld. Advocate's submissions that notice under Section 72 was issued much after their request for conversion of the ex-bond Bill of Entry for assessment under DEEC scheme without duty, because, as per the case records, while such a request for DEEC scheme was made by appellants on 3-6-1998, the first notice under Section 72 of Customs Act, 1962 was given them on 28-11-1996, followed by another on 31-7-1997. 9. We also cannot find that the ratio of Pratibha Processors (supra) applies to the facts of this case. Simply because it was held therein that DEEC scheme was given after expiry of Bond period therefore no interest was chargeable, it does not mean that the Hon'ble Apex Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey should also allow without duty. This submission begs the dispute itself i.e. whether duty free clearance could be allowed. 12.  We cannot also accept ld. Advocate's argument that the DEEC scheme does not disentitle them from its benefit merely because bond period has expired. The DEEC scheme and the provisions relating to storage of goods under Customs Bond are originating from two different statutes and are independent of each other. The DEEC scheme cannot be used to override the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, with respect to expiry of bond period. Though an advance licence issued after bonding of goods could be used to de-bond them, as per para 7.17 of the Hand Book ibid, the EXIM policy nowhere says that this could be done eve....