Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Crompton Greaves Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ep) on 1 May, 2006
ORDER Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The appeal is against the lower authority's order rejecting request of the appellants to convert the impugned Shipping Bills for Duty Drawback to Shipping Bills for DEEC. The adjudicating Commissioner has rejected the request of the appellants on the ground that they have not fulfilled the condition laid down in the Circular No. 4/2004-Cus dated 16.1.2004.
2. Shri C.M. Sharma, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have exported the impugned pumps and motors with spare parts under a specific contract with the Govt. of Iraq for which a Letter of Credit was opened by the Govt. of Iraq. The appellants exported the pumps against claim for duty drawback and under the same Shipping Bills, the motors were also exported without claiming either Drawback or DEEC benefit due to a mistake on the part of the Clearing Agent. He further states that the appellants had obtained advance licences for export of motors and that therefore their intention to claim DEEC benefit under the advance licences obtained from the DGFT for export to the Govt. of Iraq is not in doubt.
3. Shri Sharma further states that the two letters for conversion of impugned Shipping Bills was sent to the Customs House on 17.12.2003/14.1.2004 before the issue of Circular No. 4/2004-Cus dated 16.1.2004. The appellants subsequently made another request on 12.9.2005 for such conversion but having applied for the same prior to issue of Circular No. 4/2004-Cus, their case deserved to be considered under earlier Circulars No. 40/2003-Cus dated 12.5.2003, No. 6/2003-Cus dated 28.1.2003 & No. 16/2000-Cus dated 24.2.2000.
4. Shri Sharma also cites the following decisions of the Tribunal in support of the appellants' claim for conversion of the Drawback/Free Shipping Bills to DEEC Shipping Bills:
(i) Man Industries (I) Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai
(ii) Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. CC (Export), Chennai
(iii) Sanghi Industries Ltd. v. CC, Jamnagar
(iv) International Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Amritsar
(v) Smruti Pottery Works v. CC, Kandla
(vi) Terai Overseas Ltd. v. CC (Port), Kolkata
5. Shri Sharma also states that the adjudicating Commissioner has merely rejected the request under the new Circular No. 4/2004-Cus dated 16.1.2004 but if their case had been considered under the earlier Circulars, they would have been in a position to prove that they were entitled to the DEEC benefit on the basis of details available even though the goods have been exported without claiming any export benefit.
6. Heard Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned SDR, who states that the goods have not been examined as to whether they were eligible for grant of the DEEC benefit and the appellants have not claimed any such benefit at the time of export. He has no objection, however, if the case is remanded for factual verification, as to whether the DEEC benefit can be extended to the appellants on the basis of evidence to be produced by the appellants.
7. On hearing both sides and perusal of the case records, we find that since the appellants had requested for conversion of the impugned Shipping Bills to DEEC Shipping Bills prior to issue of Circular No. 4/2004-Cus dated 16.1.2004 and such conversion was permissible under the existing Circulars prior to 16.1.2004, the case of the appellants requires to be re-examined in the light of those existing Circulars. The fact that the appellants had supplied the impugned goods under a contract to the Govt. of Iraq for which Letter of Credit was opened by the said Govt. and the appellants had obtained advance licences from the DGFT also requires to be kept in view while re-examining their request for conversion of the impugned Shipping Bills to DEEC Shipping Bills. The fact that the appellants have included the motors in the Drawback Shipping Bills filed for pumps without claiming any export benefit for the motors also substantiates their claim that this has happened due to a mistake on the part of the Clearing Agent.
8. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh decision in the light of earlier circulars existing before issue of Circular No. 4/2004-Cus dated 16.1.2004. The appellants shall be at liberty to adduce such evidence as are necessary before the adjudicating Commissioner in support of their claim for such conversion and grant of DEEC benefit.
9. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in Court)