Page 142 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

52 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

14. It appears that thereafter, there were communications inter se be-
tween different Departments of the respondents as to who was the proper officer
to cancel the LEO and to grant amendment in the shipping bills. Thereafter, the
petitioner received a communication dated 1-2-2018 addressed by the respondent
No. 6 Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Exports) to the Deputy Commission-
er of Customs, Kandla, stating that since the application for amendment of ship-
ping bills has been made beyond three months, the amendment could not be
permitted in view of the Circular No. 36/2010-Cus., dated 23-9-2010 as the same
is barred by time.
15. However, despite the fact that the respondent No. 6 - Assistant
Commissioner of Customs (Exports), had already opined that the amendment of
shipping bills made beyond three months is not permissible, a copy of the letter
dated 8-3-2018 addressed by the respondent No. 6 to the respondent No. 5 - De-
velopment Commissioner was forwarded to the petitioner, whereby the re-
spondent No. 6 had requested the respondent No. 5 to submit specific report on
the points set out therein. By a letter dated 2-4-2018 of the Appraiser, Kandla
SEZ, Gandhidham from the Office of the Development Commissioner, respond-
ent No. 5 herein, the petitioner has been informed that its request for amendment
in the shipping bills to incorporate ‘Declaration of Intent’ has not been consid-
ered by the competent authority in terms of the Board’s Circular No. 36/2010-
Cus., dated 23-9-2010.
16. By a letter dated 21-5-2018, the petitioner made a representation to
the respondent No. 3 and requested to consider and extend the benefit of the
MEIS similar to the instructions issued for incorporation of the MEIS declaration
and allowing the MEIS benefits on the shipping bills filed prior to 1-6-2015. The
petitioner also addressed a representation dated 7-6-2018 and requested the re-
spondent No. 3 - DGFT to accept the declaration and to extend the benefits in
terms of the Public Notice issued for the EDI shipping bills. The petitioner also
lodged an online grievance before the respondent No. 3 - DGFT and requested to
follow the instructions issued for the EDI Ports, which came to be rejected.
17. It is the case of the petitioner that the authorities had not examined
the fact that there is neither any revenue loss nor is any prejudice caused to the
Government if such benefit is extended to Non-EDI Ports as well.
18. In response to various representations made by the petitioner to the
respondent No. 2 - Under Secretary, SEZ Division, Government of India, a direc-
tion came to be issued to the respondent No. 5 - Development Commissioner to
send comments on the issues raised by the petitioner. Despite various represen-
tations and directions to the authority to submit comments, there was no re-
sponse thereto.
19. Subsequently, by a letter dated 31-10-2018/1-11-2018 of the Joint
Development Commissioner addressed to the respondent No. 2 - Under Secre-
tary, Government of India, it was opined that no procedural relaxation has been
prescribed in case of Non-EDI shipping bills. Since there was no communication
to the petitioner pursuant to the above referred letter, the petitioner addressed
yet another representation to the respondent No. 2 - Under Secretary, Govern-
ment of India, vide letter dated 22-1-2019, requesting to allow benefits under the
MEIS. By a letter dated 11-2-2019, the petitioner was informed that a detailed
report with regard to the MEIS has been sought from the Kandla SEZ authority
and that the request of the Unit cannot be considered, as the request had been

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  142