Commissioner of Customs Vs Bharat Electronics Ltd. (CESTAT Bangalore)
The case relates to an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority that allowed amendment of shipping bills after export. The Respondent, a Government of India undertaking engaged in the manufacture and export of electronics and communication equipment, had exported goods between July 2, 2020 and December 28, 2020. While filing shipping bills, the Respondent intended to claim duty drawback but inadvertently filed certain shipping bills as “free shipping bills” due to a clerical error, thereby omitting the drawback claim.
By a letter dated February 9, 2021, the Respondent requested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to convert 19 such shipping bills to “All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback.” It was clarified that the exports were not made under any export promotion schemes such as Advance Authorization or EPCG, that all duties and taxes including GST, IGST, and Basic Customs Duty had been paid on inputs, and that export proceeds would be received in foreign currency. The Respondent also stated that similar exports were regularly made with drawback claims and that the omission was procedural.
The Adjudicating Authority, after considering Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 and CBEC Circular No. 4/2004, allowed the conversion. However, the Revenue filed an appeal contending that the order was inconsistent with CBEC Circular No. 36/2010, which prescribes a time limit of three months for such conversion requests. It was argued that out of 18 shipping bills considered, 9 were within the time limit while 8 were beyond three months, and therefore did not satisfy the conditions of the circular. The Revenue also relied on judicial precedent to assert that Board circulars are binding on departmental authorities.
