2005 (8) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n upholding the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and declining the request of the applicant to reconvert the already assessed home consumption bill of entry into bond bill of entry under Section 46(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Sometime in November, 1995 the applicant a 100% export-oriented unit (EOU) had imported a consignment of Pipe Head PHPO 40 (hereinafter referred to as 'the imported goods') under Customs Tariff Head 8477.90 as machine part for the production of HDPE and MDPE Pipes and filed a bond bill of entry, claiming that the said capital goods have been imported under 100% EOU scheme and clear the same duty free under Notification No. 13/81 dated February 9, 1981 on production of attested list....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... request of the applicant to convert the already assessed home consumption bill of entry into bond bill of entry on the ground that by allowing such conversion, the interest of the revenue would be prejudicially affected. On appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide order dated February 8, 1999 allowed the appeal on the ground that the applicant had initially sought clearance of the goods under 100% EOU scheme and it is the policy decision of the Government to allow full exemption of import duty to the goods imported by 100% EOU and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to seek reconversion of home consumption bill of entry into Bond bill of entry. On further appeal filed by the revenue, the CEGAT by its order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l, admittedly the goods were imported under 100% EOU scheme so as to obtain clearance without payment of duty and, therefore, by permitting reconversion of the home consumption bill of entry, no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. Mr. Patel further submitted that under Section 46(5) of the Customs Act, the authorities are bound to permit conversion of bill of entry unless it is established that the conversion is sought with fraudulent intention or such conversion would cause loss of revenue. In the present case, neither of the conditions are satisfied and, therefore, the denial of reconversion of bill of entry was wholly erroneous and contrary to law. 8. In our opinion there is no merit in the contentions of the applicant. Admittedly....