TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducts. They also submitted that they had already submitted the Chartered Engineer Certificate certifying the inputs used in the resultant export product which is mandatory for logging the DEEC. 1.2 Exporters request was examined in the light of Standing Order No. 7078 dated 20-1-1995, they were to declare the exempted material used in manufacture of the resultant export product at the time of export, as the same is to be examined at the time of examination of the goods. Since no declaration regarding inputs used in the manufacture of the resultant export product was made by the exporter at the time of export and also there was no Standing Order for conversion of DEPB Shipping Bills to DEEC Shipping Bills, they were asked to explain, why their request for conversion should not be rejected? 1.3 The exporter submitted that they had provided Chartered Engineer Certificate certifying the inputs used in the resultant product. They also submitted that during the verification of Advance Licence with the Shipping Bills and other documents after obtaining the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate from Jt. DGFT, Department can verify the inputs used in the resultant product.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s Man Industries (I) Ltd. filed an appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and prayed : (i) That the impugned order (letter dated 20-1-2004) be quashed and set aside. (ii) That any further and other reliefs as deemed necessary may be granted. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal vide Order-in-Appeal No. 503/2004-MCH dated 31-8-2004 on the ground that Appeal against the order/decision of the Commissioner lies to the Tribunal and Appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) in such cases is beyond jurisdiction. 1.8 M/s. Man Industries (I) Ltd. filed an Appeal before CESTAT, West Regional Bench at Mumbai, where vide an Order No. A-146/WZB/2005/CI dated 14-2-2005 [2005 (184) E.L.T. 39 (Tri. - Mumbai)], the Bench observing that the Commissioner has refused permission for conversion only on the basis of Circular No. 2/2004, such denial cannot be sustained in view of the circulars in force during the pendency of the application for conversion and the Tribunal's order in the case of Sumruti Pottery Works v CC Kandla and M/s. Sanghi Industries Ltd. v CC, Jamnagar. Since there is no finding by the Commissioner in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03 which clearly states that conversion of Shipping Bills from one export promotion scheme to another (where the benefits of that scheme has been refused by Customs/DGFT vide Para 4(ii) of DOR Circular No. 6/2003-Cus.) may be permitted on merits by the Commissioner on case to case basis. There is no such refusal by Customs or DGFT under Para 4(ii) of the Circular No. 6/2003 ibid. In fact, the request for conversion is an afterthought and not merely a mistake. I find the benefit of the Export Promotion scheme has not been denied by DGFT, Ministry of Commerce or Customs. As regards submission of the exporters during Personal Hearing that request for conversion from DEPB to DEEC was made within one month of the export in December 2002, I observe that there is no such condition for conversion of Shipping Bills in Circular No. 6/2003 and 40/2003 but a condition stipulated in para 3.2 (a) of Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., dated 16-1-2004 and already submitted by the exporters that they do not fall under the Board's Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., dated 16-1-2004. Since Board's Circular Nos. 4/2004 supersedes earlier DOR Circular Nos. 6/2003-Cus., dated 28-1-2003 and 40/2003-Cus., dated 12-5-2003....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the request of conversion of the Shipping Bills. Hence this appeal. 2.1 The request of the appellant for conversion of the Shipping Bills was made in terms of the statutory rights available to the appellant under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said section entitles the proper officer of Customs to direct amendment of any document, after it has been presented in the Custom House. By the application of conversion of the Shipping Bill, appellant was requesting the proper officer, to exercise this statutory power vested in such authority, to amend a Shipping Bill. The statutory conditions subject to which such amendment could or could not be made is described in the proviso to Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which reads as : "Provided that no amendment of a bill of entry or a shipping bill or bill of export shall be so authorized to be amended after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse, or the export goods have been exported, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be." It is not in dispute that the req....