TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t), in terms of Para 4.31 of Handbook of Procedures. The application filed by them was rejected by the DGFT and DFRCs issued to them were cancelled because the Customs Authorities were not in a position to confirm the technical characteristics endorsed on the basis of corroborative documents. Liberty was given to the appellants to get the technical characteristics endorsed by the customs authorities on the shipping bills vide order dated 14.3.2005. By the time the cancellation order was issued, the appellant found that they had lost the original shipping bills and filed an FIR with the Bhilad Police Station. It is submitted by the appellant that finally they were able to locate the shipping bills in Feb 2010 and thereafter, they filed an ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be made in a routine manner and as a matter of right. It was also observed that amendment can be allowed only if it was based on documentary evidence in existence at the time the goods were exported. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. The facts of the case have already been explained briefly above and we proceed to consider the issue on the basis of ground of rejection considered by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order. 5. The first ground taken in the impugned order is that application has been submitted very late. According to the circular No. 4/2004-Cus, application for conversion from one scheme to another is required to be made within one month of denial/ rejection of the claim. In this case, the rejection by the Jt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anipulation and no investigation should have been initiated against the exporter in respect of such exports. He relied upon paragraph 7 to 9 of the cancellation order dated 14.3.2005, issued by Jt DGFT for coming to the conclusion that appellants have misled the licensing authorities by producing the false Chartered Engineer certificates. Relied upon paragraphs are reproduced below:- 7. In the instant case, the exporter has submitted test report drawn against shipping bill No. 2500188 cleared by JNPT Customs against DFRC claims. The said shipping bill is not covered by the application for the DFRCs which are subject matter of this show cause notice. The test report was further supported by chartered engineer certificate claiming that on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 0310249699 dated 17/01/2004 and 0310242926 dated 18/12/2003 stands cancelled ab initio. The notice is directed to approach Customs to get the technical characteristics endorsed on shipping bill for issue of DFRCs afresh. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the observation of Jt. DGFT that appellant submitted false certificate is not correct. He drew our attention to the fact that in Para 7 of the order, Jt. DGFT observed that Chartered Engineer certificate itself states that the certificate is being issued on the basis of documents made available to him. However, ongoing through the relevant paragraph, we find that rejection of request for issue of DFRC License was not because the appellant submitted false Chartered Engineer certificate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delay. As already observed by us above, in view of the Police report, it cannot be said that there was five year delay in filing application. Therefore, the application has to be considered on merits. 9. The next issue to be considered is that when the request was made for conversion of shipping bills from one scheme to another, such conversion can be allowed only where it is possible to verify eligibility of the application for the scheme on the basis of existing documents and records. Learned counsel submits that entry No. 354 in the product group Engineering Products of DEPB reads as Stainless Steel cutlery with or without handle irrespective of material the handle may be made of. After going through the copies of shipping bills produ....