TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod from 2013-14 to 2016-17 for which conversion was requested, are as under: Year No. of Free Shipping Bills filed FOB Value (INR) Drawback Amount Eligible (INR) 2013-14 117 8,87,61,868/- 46,48,956/- 2014-15 126 13,69,59,790/- 69,55,899/- 2015-16 151 17,00,11,176/- 59,27,317/- 2016-17 141 14,43,76,695/- 80,86,028/- TOTAL 535 53,92,09,530/- 2,56,18,202/- 3. The exporter was given an opportunity of personal hearing where the CEO of the company Shri R. Sriram submitted a letter dated 18.01.2018 stating that he had assumed charge as CEO of the company and noticed that drawback benefits were not claimed for the exports by the earlier merchandiser who was handling the exports made to M/s. Aspinal of London. He took corrective measures and has filed the request for conversion of the free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills. 4. During the course of personal hearing, samples of the items exported were produced before the Adjudicating Authority. A committee was constituted for looking into the samples as well as related documents of exports made during the disputed period. The committee reported that on visual examination of old and n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of filing the shipping bills in regard to exports made to M/s. Aspinal, London, omitted to take note of the drawback benefits. That the previous management was not aware of the drawback eligibility and only after the new CEO took charge, the measures to correct the same were undertaken. That it was only an inadvertent omission on the part of the appellant not to file drawback shipping bills at the time of export. 5.3 Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Autotech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai in Customs Appeal No. 41584 of 2019 [Final Order No. 42351 of 2021 dated 30.09.2021] and submitted that in the said case, the Tribunal has held that the conversion of shipping bills has to be allowed if filed within a reasonable time of three years. The decisions in the cases of M/s. Suminter India Organics P. Ltd. v. C.C. (Export), Nhava Sheva, Mumbai-II reported in 2016 (343) E.L.T. 599 (Tri. - Mumbai) as well as M/s. Polydrug Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C. (General), Mumbai reported in 2015 (317) E.L.T. 271 (Tri. - Mumbai) were also relied by him. 5.4 Shri S. Balakumar, Learned Authorized Repre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Cow Flamingo Leather Essential flat Pouch 4 8177622/09.06.2016 LB529 Cow Elite Leather A5 Zipped Padfolio 5 8177622/09.06.2016 LB569A Cow Elite Leather Men's classic Wasg Bag 6 8338596/17.06.2016 LB531 Cow Fiesta Leather A4 Padfolio 17. It was observed by the Committee that on visual inspection, the item samples were found to be made of 60% more of visible outer / outer & inner surface leather; that it cannot be ascertained as to whether the same items were exported or not since the export cargo has already left & not available; that the said 6 samples were retained for future reference; that the produce code as mentioned in the export invoices have tallied with stock code of the item mentioned in purchase orders." 9. However, in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the impugned order, the Commissioner has relied upon Board Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. dated 23.09.2010 to hold that the appellant has not been able to satisfactorily explain the reasons for not filing the drawback shipping bills at the time of export. It is held in paragraph 24 that though the exporter has tried to prove that the goods exported were articles of leather, as described in the export documen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se on hand, although no limitation has been prescribed in section 149, an assessee cannot be permitted to take undue advantage. The remedy of amendment under section 149 should be sought within a reasonable time. We have already expressed our view that there is inordinate delay in filing the application for amendment under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. We then have to consider what would be the reasonable period for entertaining an application under section 149 of the Customs. 41. The Customs Act, 1962 being a special law and a complete code in itself it would not be proper to pull in the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963 and make it applicable to section 149. More so, because section 149 does not deal with any recovery of duty or refund of duty. It is a section merely to permit amendment in documents. Amendment is purely a procedural requirement. The legislature in its wisdom has not prescribed either in the Act or Rules a time limit to fulfill this procedural requirement. The consequence of such amendment as already stated, is to claim refund of duty suffered on inputs in the nature of drawback. The Limitation Act limits the period for filing a suit for r....