AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Drawback Shipping Bills is assailed in this appeal. 2. M/s. Autolite (India) Ltd. [the appellant] manufactured and exported headlamps for automobiles during the period April 1998 to December 1998. It had applied to the DGFT on 27.04.1998 for a licence under the Quantity Based Advance Licence [QBAL] scheme and on the basis of the acknowledgement of the application, the appellant exported goods under 111 Shipping Bills. QBAL was a scheme of DGFT which allowed duty free imports of inputs based on the quantity of the goods exported. 3. DGFT neither issued nor denied the QBAL licences to the appellant and so, the appellant sought a denial letter from Joint DGFT Jaipur on 07.07.2003 and followed it up with several reminders and finally, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed representative for the Revenue made the following submissions: (i) The Shipping Bills were filed between May 1998 to December 1998 and the application for their conversion to drawback shipping bills was submitted on 11.6.2007 which was rejected by the Commissioner. (ii) Free shipping bills and drawback shipping bills are two different types of shipping bills and are subject to different levels of scrutiny. In free shipping bills, since no export incentive is claimed, the processing is much faster and the exported goods are subject to much lighter controls. On the other hand, if an incentive like drawback of some export promotion scheme is claimed, such shipping bills are subject to a much greater level of scrutiny. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tively and they cannot be applied retrospectively. (vi) Amendment of Shipping Bills under Section 149 is different from conversion of the shipping bills from free to drawback. Such conversion does not amend the Shipping Bill but changes its very nature. This was the decision of High Court of Delhi in M/s. Terra Films Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Customs [2011(268) E.L.T. 433 (Del.)]. (vii) The decision of High Court of Delhi was followed by the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Export) versus M/s. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2013 (293) E.L.T. 3 (Mad.)] (viii) Thus, there is neither any justification to convert the free Shipping Bills into drawback shipping bills under section 149 several years afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he entire nature of the document. Paragraph 6 of Terra Films is reproduced below: 6. As per proviso of this Section 149, no amendment of a shipping bill was to be allowed after the export goods have been exported except on the basis of the documentary evidence, which was in existence at the time the goods were exported. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/exporter in this regard was that the exporter was in possession of all the documents at the time of export to show that it was entitled to claim under the DEPB/DECC cum drawback scheme. From the plain reading of Section 149, it may be seen that exporter could not claim amendment in routine and as a matter of right. The discretion vested in the Proper Officer to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner in the remand case rightly distinguished the cases cited on behalf of the exporter from the facts of the present. The finding of fact as arrived at by the Commissioner has been rightly upheld by the CESTAT. (emphasis supplied) 10. Paragraph 18 of the Suzlon Energy is reproduced below: 18. A similar issue was considered by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the matter of M/s. Terra Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2011 (268) E.L.T. 443 (Del.)]. In the above decision, the Delhi High Court has considered the scope of Section 149 of Customs Act and found that the discretion vested in the Proper Officer to permit amendment in any document after the same has been presented in the Customs house ....