Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2021 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 1099 - MADRAS HIGH COURTConversion of free shipping bills into Advance Licence/DEPB/DFRC/Drawback shipping bills - effective date that has to be taken into account in deciding the cut-off point when the unit in question would cease to be an Export Oriented Unit and assume status of a unit under the EPCG Scheme - the relevant date would be date of in-principle approval, being 10.04.2007 or final exit order, being 01.01.2008? - Rule 12 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - HELD THAT:- Rule 12 deals with the declarations to be made on shipping bills specifying the nature of the export transaction. In the present case, all shipping bills between April and end December, 2007 were free shipping bills for the reason that the petitioner had yet to receive the final order of exit. In any event, the proviso to Rule 12 states that the Commissioner of Customs, if satisfied that the exporter or authorised agent has failed to comply with Rule 12 for reasons beyond its control, might well exempt the exporter/authorised agent from the rigour of the clause. According to the petitioner, had the authorities taken it upon themselves to issue the final exit order well in time, then the petitioner would have ensured compliance with provisions of Rule 12 and there would have been no necessity to file free shipping bills as against EPCG bills. Though Rule 12 (1) clearly vests discretion in the Commissioner to grant exemption by way of duty drawback even in respect of free shipping bills, such discretion must be extended by way of a reasoned speaking order - neither of the impugned orders dated 09.08.2019 and 02.03.2020 satisfy this requirement. The Customs Act, 1962 is a central enactment and there must thus, be uniformity in the exercise of discretion by officers in different stations. If an officer in a particular station has thought it fit to accept an assessee’s claim in an identical circumstance, then any variation from this point of view only be after a process of detailed reasoning to justify the difference in stand. The dichotomy in the stand adopted by the different authorities as well as the fact that there is no reasoning to support the conclusion in the impugned order, is fatal to the respondents’ case - impugned orders are set aside - petition disposed off.
|