TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioned in brief. The appellant is a manufacturer of c-extruded multilayer film having their factory in specified area of Himachal Pradesh and availing exemption from customs duty. It exported commodities under 7 shipping bills during the period of September 2004 to April 2005. In the shipping bills, they had mentioned about the scheme under which exports were made as "DEPB/DEEC". The goods stood exported to the destination under this scheme. After a lapse of considerable period, the exporter/appellant vide its letter dated 27th January, 2006 followed by some more letters requested for permission to amend their DEEC/DEPB shipping bills into those DEEC/DEPB cum drawback scheme. As per the Board Circular No.4/2004-Cus. Dated 16th January, 2004....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xported only on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were exported. It is thus clear that amendment of shipping bill is not to be allowed in a routine manner after the export goods have been exported. It is observed that the exporter have in this context relied upon the decisions of Hon‟ble CESTAT in the cases of Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, [2004(173) E.L.T. 342 (Tri-Del)], Smurti Pottery Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [2004(163) E.L.T. 184 (Tri-Del)], Sanghi Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2005(179) E.L.T. 39 (Tri-Mumbai). I, however, observe that the facts and circumstances in the cases decided by the Hon‟ble CESTAT and relied upon by the export....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly discretionary power. Commissioner has refused to exercise the discretion in favour for the appellant, he has relied on the guidelines prescribed by the Board vide Circular No.4/2004 dated 16.01.2004 issued vide F.No.609/176/02/DBK. He has held that the appellant does not come under the guidelines issued by the Board. In fact, he has held that it is amounts to "conversion of shipping bills" and not merely of amendment. One reason for not acceding to the request was that the goods have been already exported. The apprehension of the learned SDR that in respect of the goods already exported during the year 2004 and 2005, to cause verification to fix the brand rate under the drawback rules is physically impossible deserves to be taken into a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on having been ushered in the Customs administration, clearance of goods is being permitted mostly on the basis of self-declaration made by the exporters on the shipping bills. Such self-assessment scheme necessarily casts the responsibility on the exporters to make up his mind at the time of filing shipping bills as to which export promotion incentive he likes to avail. With the introduction of the system of on-line assessment, such request for conversion at a later date creates difficulties and it is not advisable to encourage such conversion. (B) It is, therefore, clarified that conversion of free shipping bills into Advance Licence/DEPB/DFRC shipping bills should not be allowed. As regards permitting conversion of shipping bil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g conversion of shipping bills from one export promotion scheme to another, this clause envisages that such conversion to be allowed only where the benefit of export promotion scheme claimed by the exporter has been denied by DGFT/MOC or Customs due to any dispute. However, in such a case, conversion may be permitted by the Commissioner on case-to-case basis, subject to conditions enumerated in sub clauses (a) to (e). Even under Clause A, the request for conversion from one scheme to another was not to be done ordinarily in routine. It was primarily for the reason that such conversion at a later date created difficulties. There is no dispute with regard to submissions as made by the learned counsel for the exporter/appellant that the circul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods were exported. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/exporter in this regard was that the exporter was in possession of all the documents at the time of export to show that it was entitled to claim under the DEPB/DECC cum drawback scheme. From the plain reading of Section 149, it may be seen that exporter could not claim amendment in routine and as a matter of right. The discretion vested in the Proper Officer to permit amendment in any document after the same has been presented in the Customs house. Though this discretion was to be exercised judiciously, but it was qualified with the proviso that the amendment could be allowed only if it was based on the documentary evidence in existence at the time the goods we....