By TIOL News Service

BANGALORE, SEPT 30, 2013: THE appellant made a request for conversion of free shipping bills into DEEC bills in view of the fact that they had imported components duty free for using in their manufacture of export goods and while filing ARE-2/shipping bills, they had failed to mention these facts in the relevant documents. The request has been rejected by the Commissioner and so the appellant is before the Tribunal.

The advocate submits that the Commissioner has rejected the request on the ground that the request was made for conversion of shipping bills and it is their submission that what has been sought is not conversion but amendment under Section 149 of Customs Act 1962. For this purpose he relies upon several decisions of the Tribunal. On the other hand the AR would submit that it is in reality a conversion of shipping bill only and he also relies on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Terra Films Pvt. Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-215-HC-DEL-CUS .

The Tribunal noted that amendment can be permitted on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared or exported as the case may be. There is no dispute on the fact that in the shipping bill, the DEEC licence number was not quoted nor a declaration was made that the exports are being made to fulfill the obligation, under DEEC licence. The next document which is required to be considered which was in existence at the time of export is that form ARE-2 submitted by the appellants. The appellants had goods stuffed at the factory and certificate was issued by the jurisdictional officers. On going through the form ARE-2 as observed by the Commissioner in the impugned order, it is seen that the appellants did not make the necessary declaration to state that export is in discharge of export obligation under a value based advance licence issued. The shipping bill was also a free-shipping bill and there was no examination in the port since the examination was done by the Range Officer and the seal was affixed by the Central Excise officer. Therefore the contemporaneous record we have is only a free shipping bill and an ARE-2 wherein no declaration regarding advance licence was available and the examination was done by the inspector who did not draw the sample also.

In the above background, the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that in this case the very fact that the examination was conducted by the inspector would show that the department treated the consignment as one of export without claiming any incentive.

So, the Tribunal held that the request for conversion cannot be considered and the impugned order rejecting the request has to be upheld.

(See 2013-TIOL-1439-CESTAT-BANG)