2013 (12) TMI 1607

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant manufactured and exported pontoon vide Shipping Bill No. 5411422, dated 14-11-2005, FOB Rs. 5,91,13,924.80. The structure was manufactured at Thane under Central Excise supervision and was exported under ARE-1 No. 2/05-06, dated 17-11-2005. The appellant had mentioned that he will be claiming benefit under DEPB scheme + EPCG licence and also re-exported under claim of duty drawback. On the shipping bill, duty drawback was erroneously not mentioned. When the appellant approached the excise authority for refund, it was pointed out to them that the shipping bill does not state about duty drawback claim and accordingly they will not be entitled to the refund of duty on the same. Accordingly, the appellant approached the customs authority im .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd he also relies on the ruling in the case of Man Industries (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (EP) - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 433 (Tri.-Mum.), wherein it was held that the request for conversion of shipping bill was made in terms of the statutory rights available to the appellant under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said section entitles the proper officer of Customs to direct amendment of any document, after it has been presented in Custom House. The statutory condition subject to which such amendment could or could not be made is described in the proviso to Section 149 of the Customs Act, which reads as under :- "Provided that no amendment of a bill of entry or a shipping bill or bill of export shall be so authorized to be am .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g that the mentioning of the claim of drawback was required on in the shipping bill for necessary verification by the customs authorities. In fact herein the claim for drawback has been already examined by the excise authorities and it appears from endorsement on ARE-1 that the same has been examined by the excise authorities. The reliance has been placed on the ruling of the Tribunal in the case of Tera Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2010 (261) E.L.T. 226 (Tri.-Del.), wherein the amendment of shipping bill for benefit of drawback was refused by the Commissioner holding that it amounts to conversion of shipping bill and not merely amendment. Further, the goods are already exported and necessary endorsement was absen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X