AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, would not it amount to reassessment of the Shipping Bills? If so whether re-assessment of the Shipping Bills can be dealt under the provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962? 2. 1st Respondent M/s.Suzlon Energy Limited is engaged in manufacture of export of Wind Operated Electricity Generator and parts thereof. 1st Respondent had been importing raw material required for the manufacture of export production viz., blades for rotor 2100 KW Model Suzlon Branch Wind Operated Electricity Generators under Advance Licence (Advance Authorisation) No.3110034801/2/03/00 dated 08.8.2008 issued by the Joint Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Pune after executing a bond with Customs Department for fulfilment of export obligation within the stipulated time. The export goods in question were in deed manufactured using exempted materials used for manufacture of export product in the above referred Advance Licence and few other items. 1st Respondent filed five Shipping Bills bearing Nos.3681452 dt. 17.3.2010; 3681453 dt. 17.03.2010; 3686416 dt. 21.3.2010; 3686417 dt. 21.03.2010 and 3687396 dt. 22.03.2010 under "Drawback and EPCG Scheme" (Scheme Code 44) for export of Wind Operated Ele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heme claimed by the exporter has been denied by DGFT/MoC or Customs and that 1st Respondent has not produced any evidence for rejection as mentioned in Para 3.2 of Board's Circular No.4/2004 dated 16.1.2004. Learned counsel further submitted that Tribunal ought to have considered that this is not the rectification of error in the Scheme code. But it is the request for conversion of Scheme of the Shipping Bills from "Drawback & EPCG" [Code No.44] to "Drawback EPCG and DEEC" [Code No.71]. It was submitted that conversion of Scheme of the Shipping Bills are to be considered in terms of Board's Circular No.4/2004 dated 16.1.2004 and Tribunal was not right in invoking Section 149 of Customs Act for conversion of the Scheme. 5. Mr.Lakshmi Kumaran, learned counsel for 1st Respondent submitted that request of 1st Respondent was not exactly falling under category of conversion of Shipping Bills from one Scheme to another; but is a case of simple clerical error and requesting addition of words "Advance Licence" along with EPCG Drawback and would not amount to making request for conversion of Shipping Bills in one export scheme to another and if it is so assumed, conversion/addition should b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclaration 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. 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 bills from one export promotion scheme to another is concerned, it is clarified that such conversion should only be allowed where the benefit of an export promotion scheme claimed by the exporter has been denied by DGFT/MOC or Customs due to any dispute. Such conversion may be permitted on merits by the Commissioner on case to case basis subject to the following conditions: a. The request for conversion is made by the exporter within one month of the denial/rejection of the benefit claimed. b. On the basis of available export documents etc., the fact of use of inputs is satisfac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mendment, Section 149 of Customs Act could be pressed into service. On the other hand, if it is a conversion of one Scheme to another, certainly, relevant Board's Circular which governs the procedure for which conversion will come into operation and the exporter is bound by such Circular. At the relevant point of time, admittedly, the Circular No.4 of 2004 dated 16.1.2004 was holding the field and the relevant Paragraph has already been extracted supra. 12. 1st Respondent imported Capital Goods (Machineries) under Export Promotion Capital Goods and Raw Materials under Duty Entitlement Certificate. For the imports made under EPCG (Concessional Duty Scheme), the exporters have to export goods for five times of CIF value of the imported goods. With regard to the goods imported under Exemption Scheme (DEEC), the importers have to manufacture the final export product out of the imported goods and export within a stipulated period. In the present case, the 1st Respondent availed benefit under both EPCG Scheme and DEEC Scheme. According to Department since the 1st Respondent availed the benefit under both Schemes, the 1st Respondent is obligated to manufacture the final product of the ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Customs that the materials were not used or that 1st Respondent was not eligible for the Scheme at all. It was submitted that the only ground on which the request for rejection rejected was that 1st Respondent has not filed the order rejecting the request for allowing the benefit of the export scheme. 16. The above contention does not merit acceptance. As pointed out earlier only to claim benefit under Drawback EPCG scheme and DEEC scheme, the exporter has to file DEEC declaration to the effect what are the raw materials used in the manufacture of the final product. At the time of examination of the goods materials given in the declaration will be verified. In the present case, the same was not verified since Shipping Bills were not filed under DEEC scheme. Therefore, it is not open to the 1st Respondent to contend that there was no finding by the Commissioner of Customs that the materials were not used in the manufacture of the final export product. 17. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent placed subsequent Circular No.36 of 2010 dated 23.9.2010 to contend that Circular No.4 of 2004 dated 16.1.2004 has been superseded and the conditions impo....