TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uest for conversion of 'drawback shipping bill' to 'drawback-Cum-advance authorization shipping bill' said to have been filed by the petitioner on 08.12.2014 before the Custom House, Tuticorin could not be traced after lapse of five years and six months cannot be accepted by this Court - It is to be noted that since there was no response from the 1st respondent, the petitioner submitted a grievance in Centralized Public Grievance Redressal System and the same was also disposed of by rejecting the request of the petitioner for conversion of the shipping bills. The matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity including the personal hearing and appropriate orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue of authorization. 2.1. On the strength of the above mentioned advance authorization, the petitioner imported raw materials and the petitioner manufactured the pyjama and exported the same by filing shipping bill Nos.4885813/08.09.14, 4885840/08.09.14, 4885839/08.09.14 and the same were filed under the 'draw back scheme'. Since the top portion of the pyjama was manufactured using inputs/fabrics procured locally and the pant was manufactured using the imported inputs, under advance authorization scheme, the shipping bills had to be filed under the 'Drawback-cum-Advance Authorization Scheme'. Therefore, the petitioner filed a request vide letter dated 08.12.2014 to the second respondent, seeking to convert the 'drawb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for conversion/amendment of the shipping bills. Since, there was no response, the petitioner had sent reminders to the first respondent, which also gone in vain. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a grievance in Centralized Public Grievance Redressal System on 19.08.2020 and the same was disposed of by the first respondent on 09.09.2020, stating as under:- In respect of your grievances, the Shipping Bills 4885813/08.09.2014, 4885840/08.09.2014 and 4885839/08.09.2014 which were filed under DBK scheme (code 19) was cleared for export under RMS without any examination. The scheme change to code 64 under drawback cum DEEC licence requires rigorous examination norms and as per Circular No.36/2010-Cus, dated 23.09.2010 for scheme changes, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er RMS, without any examination and LEO granted on 09.09.2014. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the request for conversion of 'drawback shipping bill' to 'drawback-Cum-advance authorization shipping bill' said to have been filed by the petitioner on 08.12.2014 before the Custom House, Tuticorin could not be traced after lapse of five years and six months cannot be accepted by this Court. It is to be noted that since there was no response from the 1st respondent, the petitioner submitted a grievance in Centralized Public Grievance Redressal System and the same was also disposed of by rejecting the request of the petitioner for conversion of the shipping bills. Moreover, the request for conversion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
