AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants are in appeal. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as under :- The appellants are exporters of various Steel products, such as CRGP/CR/HR Steel Coils/Sheet. The DGFT, vide notification No. 54(RE-03), dated 28-2-2004, DGFT temporarily suspended the DEPB rates for certain steel items falling under Chapter 61 of DEPB Schedule with effect from 27-3-2004. The revocation of suspension of these DEPB rates was effected vide Public notice 71 (RE-03), dated 12-7-2004. The effect was that in between the period 27-3-2004 and 12-7-2004, the DEPB was not available to certain steel items falling under Chapter 61 of DEPB. During this period of suspension, the appellants have approached the Custom House with a request that the Engineering Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12-7-2004. Hence Shipping Bills were finalised without extending the DEPB benefits claimed therein. The appellants through their letter dated 19-08-2004 requested the Dy. Commissioner, Gr. VII (Exports), New Custom House, Mumbai for conversion of Shipping Bills (filed provisionally under DEPB Scheme) during suspended period into DFRC/Advance Licence Scheme in terms of the Board's Circular No. 4/2004, dated 16-1-2004. 5. The appellants have filed a Writ Petition No. 5417 in August, 2005 in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Mumbai challenging the validity of the revocation of suspension of DEPB rates w.e.f. 12-7-2004 (prospective in effect), the conditions stipulated in Board Circular No. 4/2004 for allowing the conversion of the Shippin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants were directed to withdraw the petition. 7. Accordingly, after hearing the submissions made by the appellants through their advocates, the learned Commissioner of Customs (EP) has passed an impugned order, holding that the Shipping Bills on finalisation were free shipping bills and also that there is no dispute with Customs in subject case as the Shipping Bills were filed under DEPB by exporter on his own free will when in fact the items exported were not covered by DEPB rate list and this action was his suo motu action and not under force or coercion by the Department and there was no express assurance of any kind on behalf of the department at any point of time. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Ispat Industries Ltd., to submit necessary documents. He also referred to the letter dated 22-7-2005 issued by the Ministry of Finance informing the adjudicating authority as well as the appellants company and Ispat Industries Ltd., that the matter had been examined by the Board and Circular No. 4/2004-Cus. inter alia provided that conversion of the Shipping Bills from one Export Promotion Scheme to another can be allowed by the Commissioner of Customs only when the benefit of the export promotion scheme has been denied by the DGFT/MOC or Customs due to any dispute. The Finance Ministry was of the opinion that in the present case there was no dispute due to the suspension on the DEPB rates on certain Steel items for temporary period as a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round that the Appellants have not established that they were forced to file Shipping Bills under free Shipping Bills category....." "In view of the said inputs being mentioned in the Standard Input-Output Norms and the fact that Chartered Engineer has also certified the use of Zirconium Silicate/Opacifier, the conversion of Shipping Bill can not be denied on the ground that the Appellants have not proved the use of the ingredients. We, therefore, allow both the appeals filed by the Appellants." 9. The ld. DR in his reply arguments has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner of Customs and contends that there exists no dispute in the matter and pray to reject the appeal. 10. I have heard the submissions made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5% in the case of steel items and to 10% in case of other inputs. Further it is brought to my notice that it is always open for the appellants to file Shipping Bills under any other alternative export benefit scheme, including the DFRC at the initial stage itself. This is how the dispute started and the same has not been understood. The dispute took an interesting turn when letter dated 27-7-2005 came to be issued by the Ministry of Finance which was challenged in the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. By an order dated 23-9-2005 by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it is clearly held that the impugned letter/order "shall not survive". 12. I have also perused the detail written submissions filed by the appellant....