Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sree Rayalaseema Dutch Kassenbouw Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Export) ... on 3 November, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos. C/202/2011 to C/204/2011
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.15957/2011 dt. 13.5.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai]
1. Sree Rayalaseema Dutch Kassenbouw Ltd.
2. Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd.
3. Sree Rayalaseema Alkalis & Allied Chemicals Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Export) Chennai
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate Shri Parmod Kumar, SDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 3.11.2011 Date of decision : 3.11.2011 Final Order No.____________ Heard both sides. The matter was remanded by the Tribunal earlier vide its order dt. 22.6.2010 to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs with the following observation :-
2. The Commissioner has rejected the request of the exporters for conversion of Free Shipping Bills into DEPB Shipping Bills. During the period of export i.e. between 1.4.1997 and 14.4.1998 the goods exported namely hydrogenrated caster oil/12 hydroxy stearic acid were not covered under the DEPB scheme. However, with the issue of Public Notice No. 31 dated 21.8.1998 exports, inter alia, of the above mentioned items during the period 1.4.1997 to 14.4.1998 were covered. Section 149 of the Customs Act provides for amendment of the Bill of Entry subject to the rider that no amendment of a Bill of Entry shall be carried out after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse or the export goods have been exported, save on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time that the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be. The assessees contention that the Public Notice should be deemed to have been in existence at the time when the goods were exported is well founded in the light of the fact that the Notice of August 1998 covers exports during the prior period of April 1997 to April 1998. It is for the Commissioner to consider the request for amendment on the basis of the Public Notice and pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. However, the jurisdictional Commissioner has rejected the request of the appellants for conversion of free shipping bills to DEPB shipping bills stating that DGFT Public Notice dt. 21.8.98 was not in existence at the time of export of goods. It is rather obvious that the public notice dt. 21.8.98 was not in existence earlier and hence the public notice specifically states that it retrospectively covers shipments earlier made from 1.4.97 to 14.4.98. This public notice has been issued by the DGFT in the public interest consciously allowing DEPB benefit to the exporters retrospectively. If conversion is not allowed on the hyper-technical ground that public notice was not in existence at the time of shipment, the very purpose of the public notice issued conveying governments decision for grant of a retrospective benefit would be defeated as in no case of any exporter, conditions sought to be satisfied by the jurisdictional Commissioner could be fulfilled. That would be detrimental to the public interest which has been specifically invoked while issuing the relevant public notice dt. 21.8.98. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is set aside and the authorities below are directed to allow conversion of the shipping bills, carrying out the amendment sought for under Section 149 of the Customs Act. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER gs 3