AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....020 7.1.2020 7. 9169175 / 23.12. 2019 24.12.2019 8. 9483949 / 7.1.2020 7.1.2020 3. The goods were exported in fulfilment of the export obligation in terms of Advance Authorisation No. 0410166000 dated 26.8.2019. At the time of filing the shipping bills, the Customs Broker of the appellant had attempted to file Advance Authorisation shipping bill. However, due to a technical error in the EDI system, they could not file advance authorization shipping bill. The error arose due to the fact that the quantity mentioned in the invoice was in meters whereas the unit of measurement in the Advance authorization was in kilograms. Due to the difference in the unit of measurement, the details could not be fed into the electronic form of the shipping bill. However, the appellant had mentioned the Advance Authorisation License number in the "marks and numbers column" of the shipping bill. In the above circumstances, the goods were exported after filing as free shipping bill. He submitted that the Preventive Officer had supervised the stuffing of the goods in the container prior to export as is seen from the last page of the shipping bill. 4. The learned coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed out of Seamless Steel Tubes / Pipes - Cold finished grade UNS S31803/S32205 are not supplied by the appellant in the domestic market. The appellant is an assessee registered under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and has filed returns based on the self-assessment procedure. The department has not disputed these facts. The goods exported have been duly reported and declared in the GST returns. The declaration and assessment as per the returns having been accepted by the department, they cannot take a stand that the goods described under the shipping bills are not the goods which were actually exported. The appellant having produced the documents which were in existence at the time of export along with GST returns, the request for conversion ought not to have been rejected. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 9. The learned AR Shri R. Rajaraman appeared for the department. He supported the findings in the impugned order. 10. He referred to the Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.9.2010 and submitted that the Board has prescribed a time limit of three months from the LET export order to file a request of amendment of shipping bill. Moreover, the said sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... can allow amendment of a document if presented within such time, subject to restriction and conditions as may be prescribed. However, so far there is no notification issued prescribing time limit or stipulating any conditions for amendment of shipping bill. 15. The department has relied upon Board Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.9.2010. The said Circular was issued prior to this amendment. The Circular stipulates a time limit of three months from the date of issuance of LEO. The said circular being much prior to the amendment of section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the same cannot be applied to reject the request for conversion of shipping bill, when the Courts and Tribunal has repeatedly held that when the statute does not provide any time limit, the request for amendment cannot be rejected as time barred applying the Board Circular. 16. The Tribunal in the case of Autotech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had analyzed the issue of rejection of request for conversion of shipping bill on the ground of time bar as applicable by the Board Circular and held that the request for conversion cannot be denied by applying the Board Circular. The relevant paragraph rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 of the Board Circular No. 36/2010 has already been reproduced in para 8 above. By this Circular, a period of three months is prescribed to file the request for conversion / amendment. Section 149 does not prescribe any time limit for filing an application for amendment of document. No doubt that section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 would prevail over the Board circular. Further, Rule 12(1) of the Drawback Rules,1995 which lay down the procedure to claim drawback also allows filing of belated declaration to claim drawback if the Commissioner is satisfied that the failure to file the declaration 20 was due to reasons beyond the control of exporter. The Rules also does not limit the time. We have to hold that the request for conversion of Free Shipping Bill cannot be denied as time-barred by resorting to the Board Circular." 17. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Parayil Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2020 (10) TMI 1141 - Kerala High Court considered a similar issue and held as under:- "8. For the purpose of issuance of No Objection, provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 envisage the complete procedure for issua....