John Deere India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
In the matter abovementioned, CESTAT remanded the matter to competent authority by holding that the export would have to be deemed to have taken place only on the date of conversion, amendment of shipping bill/conversion of shipping bill under section 149 of Customs Act, 1962, to determine the limitation period for application for brand rate.
Appellant alleged that its application for determination of Brand Rate was rejected only on the ground that it was barred by limitation without reference to the relevant rate.
It was argued that appellant was 100% export oriented unit (EOU) operating under the scheme of FTP (Foreign Trade Policy). Application for transfer to Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme before jurisdiction divisional commissioner (JDC) on 17.12.2020. Debonding order was issued by JDC on 16.09.2021 and no due certificate towards customs or excise duties, was granted on 23.08.2021 by the jurisdictional central excise authorities. Shipping bills, pertaining to export during the transition i.e. 01.02.2021 to 20.09.2021, were sought to be converted as having been undertaken on claim for drawback or in fulfillment of the scheme for which application was preferred on 25.10.2021. Competent authority permitted conversion of 1147 shipping bills on 20.08.2022, of 190 shipping bills on 10.10.2022 and of 2571 shipping bills on 12.10.2022. Appellant being not satisfied with the rate of drawback in the schedule, filed application for fixation of brand rate on 13.01.2023. The said application was rejected on the ground that it was filed after 9 month and 12 days from the date of respective LEO (Let Export Order) and hence held to be barred by limitation. It was further argued that appellant could not have applied for either rate of drawback in the schedule or for fixation of ‘brand rate’ without conversion of the shipping bills by the competent authority which assumes the date of LEO for the purpose of deciding application.
