Page 141 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] GOKUL OVERSEAS v. UNION OF INDIA 51

applications came to be partly allowed, whereby twenty-five shipping bills for an
amount of Rs. 9,10,235/-, were not allowed and were disputed. The petitioner
was informed that a reference has been sent to the respondent No. 3 -DGFT seek-
ing clarification as to whether the shipping bills (Non-EDI) prior to 1-6-2015 were
eligible for the MEIS benefits or not in the absence of the ‘Declaration of Intent’
for claiming the MEIS benefits by a letter dated 3-8-2016 of the Sr. Accounts Of-
ficer, Kandla SEZ. The petitioner requested to allow benefits of the scheme and
also requested to allow conversion of the shipping bills in each case.
10. By a letter dated 6-6-2017, the petitioner made a representation to
the respondent No. 4 - Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, requesting him to al-
low the MEIS benefits on the shipping bills in case the ‘Declaration of Intent’ was
not mentioned prior to 1-6-2015 and also requested to extend the benefit of the
Public Notice dated 9-10-2015 to Non-EDI shipping bills also.
11. The petitioner was informed to apply for amendment in the form of
conversion of shipping bills from free to MEIS. Thereafter, by a letter dated 22-6-
2017, the petitioner applied for conversion of the shipping bills. By a letter dated
18/19-7-2017 of the respondent No. 5 Development Commissioner, the petitioner
was asked to amend the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act,
1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to qualify for the benefits under the
MEIS. The petitioner approached the concerned authority for amendment of the
shipping bills, as suggested by respondent No. 5, but since there was no response
thereto, the petitioner sent a reminder letter dated 1-8-2017 to the respondent
No. 6 - Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Exports), to allow amendment
without any further delay.
12. It is the case of the petitioner that despite continuous follow up by
the petitioner by way of written as well as personal visits, there was no response
or any positive outcome, and hence, the petitioner once again sent a reminder
letter to respondent No. 6 - Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Exports) re-
questing to grant amendment of the shipping bills. The petitioner marked a letter
dated 4-9-2017 written by the respondent No. 6 to the Deputy Commissioner of
Customs, Kandla, whereby comments were sought as to whether amendment of
the shipping bills were covered under Section 149 of the Act or not so as to ena-
ble their Office to process the request.
13. By a letter dated 7/8-9-2017, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs,
Kandla replied to the respondent No. 6 - Assistant Commissioner of Customs
(Exports) and confirmed that the petitioner’s goods had been exported, which is
evident from the export documents. He further reported that the petitioner has
been filing its claim for similar goods regularly under the MEIS for later periods
and it appears that their goods are otherwise eligible for the said scheme. There-
fore, in the light of the provisions of Section 149 of the Act read with the provi-
sions of Circular No. 36/2010-Cus., dated 23-9-2010 and Notification No.
40/2012-Customs (N.T.), dated 2-5-2012, the decision regarding conversion may
be taken on the basis of documentary evidence, which was in existence at the
time when the goods were exported subject to the satisfaction of the competent
authority. The petitioner was asked to submit documents, which came to be duly
submitted by a letter dated 27-9-2017 and it also declared the intention to claim
benefits under the MEIS. Since there was no response from the respondents, the
petitioner requested the respondent No. 6 - Assistant Commissioner of Customs
(Exports) to grant personal hearing regarding the issue of amendment in the
shipping bills pursuant to the claims under the MEIS.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  141