TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht had been sanctioned and disbursed. The goods under export were 'tinidazole tablets', 'DF sodium DR' with FOB value of Rs. 93,88,493.53 against the first shipping bill and 'tinidazole tablets' with FOB value of Rs. 22,36,130.56 under the second. Drawback of Rs. 1,78,381 and Rs. 38,014.22 were claimed and allowed to the appellant and the goods were examined before endorsement of 'let export order' on 12th March 2014 and 3rd January 2014 respectively. 2. The adjudicating authority allowed the conversion of the first shipping bill subject to repayment of the drawback, along with the interest but rejected the application for conversion of the other shipping bill on the ground that it was barred by time. 3. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it on the above mentioned shipping bill. It is also submitted that it took a very long time for the original documents to be brought from Brazil. The said request for conversion of shipping bill from Advance Licence Scheme to DEPB Scheme was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the Circular No.36/2010-CUs., dated 23-9-2010 is not applicable. In this case, the shipping bill was filed prior to issuance of the said circular and it was also held that the request for conversion of shipping bill is to be made by the exporter within three months from the date of 'let export order' but, in this case, the request for amendment has been made after more than one year, therefore, in that circumstances the same request is hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Customs reported in 2004-TIOL-654-CESTAT-DEL - 2004 (171) ELT 342 (Tri.) M/s. Smurti Pottery Works v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla reported in 2004 (163) ELT 184 (Tri-Del.) and M/s. Sanghi Industries Lid. v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2005 (179) ELT 44 (Tris-Del.). The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and his Tribunal in its finding has observed that "one reason for not acceding to the request was that goods have already been exported and to cause verification to fix the brand rate under the Drawback Rules is physically impossible". In view of the above, this Tribunal held that the decision taken by the learned Commissioner for denying the amendment of shipping bill in terms of Section 149 cannot be held to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch as by converting from one scheme to another, it was not only addition of word 'cum' duty drawback, but change of entire status and character of the documents. Even if it was to be taken as a case of amendment, the Proper Officer may not be in possession of the documents sought to be amended after lapse of such a long period, particularly when the goods already stood exported. For enabling an exporter to draw the benefits of any scheme, not only physical verification of documents would be required, but as is noted by both the authorities below, the verification of the goods of export as also their examination by the Customs was necessarily required to be done. In the given factual circumstances, that was rightly held to be imposs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s held that no documentary evidence has been furnished by the exporter, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to examine the documents on the basis of which the amendment is sought and also to ensure as to whether those documents were available at the time of filing of the shipping bills or not and if those documents on the basis of which amendment is sought were available at the time of filing of the shipping bills, then the appellants are entitled for conversion of the shipping bills from Advance Licence Scheme to DEPB Scheme. ln view of these observations, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to examine the documentary evidence as per the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act. 19....