M/s. Contemporary Leather Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs

Year,"No. of Free

Shipping Bills filed",FOB Value (INR),"D r a w b a c k Amount

Eligible (INR)

2013-14,117,"8,87,61,868/-","46,48,956/-

2014-15,126,"13,69,59,790/-","69,55,899/-

2015-16,151,"17,00,11,176/-","59,27,317/-

2016-17,141,"14,43,76,695/-","80,86,028/-

TOTAL,535,"53,92,09,530/-","2,56,18,202/-

Sl. No,Shipping Bill No./Date,Style No.,Description

1,9030563/18.12.2013,LB324,Cow Fiesta Leather Black Travel Wallet

2,3048318/31.05.2014,LB349,Cow Croc Leather Zipped Travel Wallet

3,3766097/27.10.2015,LB505,"Cow Flamingo Leather Essential flat

Pouch

4,8177622/09.06.2016,LB529,Cow Elite Leather A5 Zipped Padfolio

5,8177622/09.06.2016,LB569A,"Cow Elite Leather Men’s classic Wasg

Bag

6,8338596/17.06.2016,LB531,Cow Fiesta Leather A4 Padfolio

wisdom has not prescribed either in the Act or Rules a time limit to fulfill this procedural requirement. The consequence of such amendment,,,

as already stated, is to claim refund of duty suffered on inputs in the nature of drawback. The Limitation Act limits the period for filing a",,,

suit for recovery of money to three years. As per Article 137 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 any application for which no",,,

period of limitation is provided elsewhere is three years from the time when the right to apply accrues. We are unable to refrain ourselves,,,

from being not persuaded by these provisions in the Limitation Act to hold that a period of three years would be a reasonable time for filing,,,

an application under section 149.,,,

The application dated 9.10.2015 contains request for amendment of Shipping Bills for the year 2012 to 2014. It gives details of shipping,,,

bills for three years (Jan. 2012 to Dec. 2014). The second application dated 25.1.2016 made by the appellant is only an afterthought by,,,

which appellant has included Shipping Bills from the year 2000 to 2011. We hold that there is unreasonable delay in filing the request for,,,

amendment of Shipping Bills from the year 2000 to 2011 and the order of rejection in respect of these Shipping Bills is just and proper.â€​,,,

13.2 In the case of M/s. Suminter India Organics P. Ltd. (supra) as well as M/s. Polydrug Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , the Tribunal has allowed",,,

the conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills.,,,

Applying the above decisions, I am of the view that the request for conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills has to be allowed.",,,

However, since the application for conversion is filed on 23.11.2017 in regard to the shipping bills for the period 2013-14 to 2016-17, the period of",,,

limitation as set out in the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Autotech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) will apply. Hence, the shipping bills beyond the",,,

period of three years will not be eligible for conversion. For the limited purpose of looking into the shipping bills which are beyond the limitation period,,,

of three years, when computed from the date of application i.e., 23.11.2017, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority.",,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the request for conversion of the shipping bills falling within the period of three years when",,,

computed from the date of application i.e., 23.11.2017, is allowed. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to check as to whether any shipping bill falls",,,

beyond the limitation period of three years as stated in the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Autotech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra).,,,

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.,,,

(Order pronounced in the open court on 07.12.2021),,,