Promac Engineering Industries Limited vs CC SEA Ch - IV

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III

Customs Appeal No. 40299 of 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.50318/2016 dated
30.09.2016 passed by Commissioner of Customs Chennai IV
Commissionerate, 60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House,
Chennai 600 001.)

M/s Promac Engineering

Industries Limited …Appellant
Kanakapura Road, Alahalli,
Anjanapura Post, Doddakallasandra,
Bangalore 560 062.

VERSUS

The Commissioner of Customs … Respondent
Chennai-IV Commisssionerate
Custom House,
No. 60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.



APPEARANCE :
Shri M. S. Nagaraja, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri N. Mohan, Authorized Representative
for the Respondent

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 41174/2026

2






DATE OF HEARING: 12.10.2026
DATE OF DECISION: 06.11.2026

Per: Shri P. Dinesha

M/s. Promac Engineering Industries Limited
(Appellant) has filed this Appeal against the Order of
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai IV vide Order-in-
Original No. 50318/2016 dated 30.09.2016.
2.1 Brief relevant facts leading to the present
Appeal are as under. The Appellant had obtained
Advance Authorization dated 22.08.2006 for import of
specified items for manufacture and export of Raw
Grinding Vertical Mill Vertical Roller Mill complete with
Casing, liner, Roller assembly and Table assembly, the
said products were exported to M/s. Nile Cement
Company, Khartoum, Sudan in fulfillment of their
export obligation under the above advanced
authorization.
2.2 Facts indicate that upon completion of export
obligation and realization of export proceeds in Freely
Convertible Foreign Currency, the Appellant filed the
required documents with the Joint Director General of
Foreign Trade (JDGFT) for Export Obligation Discharge

3






Certificate [EODC] and the said Authority appears to
have directed the Appellant to get the Shipping Bills
endorsed for incorporation of the Advanced License
details.
2.3 In the meanwhile, it appears that the Appellant
noticed that the CHAs in respect of exports through
Chennai Sea Port had filed Free Shipping Bills instead
of Advanced License Shipping Bills despite the
availability of Advance Authorization License
(No.0710046837 dated 22.08.2006), which prompted
the Appellant to file an Application (dated 20.06.2009)
with the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Exports),
seeking amendment of the Shipping Bills however, the
Deputy Commissioner appears to have rejected the
above request vide order dated 19.08.2009 against
which, an Appeal was filed before Chennai Bench of
CESTAT. The Chennai Bench after hearing the parties,
vide Final Order No.40166/2014 dated 13.02.2014 felt
it proper and, accordingly, remanded the matter back
to the file of Commissioner of Customs (Exports) to
examine the issue afresh. The Commissioner, as a
follow up action, vide Order-in-Original which is
impugned here in this Appeal, has again rejected the

4






request for conversion, which has given rise to the
present dispute.
3.1 Heard Shri M.S. Nagaraja, Ld. Advocate for the
Appellant, who submitted at the outset that the
Department could not have rejected the request for
conversion of Shipping Bills as there is no dispute as
regards the availability of Advance Authorization
License, nor has the Department disputed the
fulfillment of export obligations in terms of the above
Advance License. Other reasons for rejecting the
Appellant’s request for conversion appears to be that
the goods in question though examined and stuffed at
the factory by the Central Excise Officers, there was
no further examination at the port, the endorsement
on AREs, striking down point No. 4 on ARE 4 are
contradictory, the Appellant, i.e. the exporter did not
submit any examination report duly endorsed by the
Central Excise Officer and also for the reason that the
Appellant’s request for conversion was filed with a
delay as against the requirements of the Board’s
Circular No.04/2004-CUS dated 16.01.2004.

5






3.2 It was explained that the reasons for rejecting
the request as forthcoming from the impugned order
were never raised in the first round, however, the
striking down of point 4 was for the reason that the
same referred to Quantity Based Advanced License
under Duty Draw Back, while the Appellant’s case was
with regard to Advanced Authorization for import of
specified items. Further, the jurisdictional Central
Excise team had inspected, verified and certified the
contents of export invoices, packing list and ARE-1 and
the export goods were factory-stuffed and the Central
Excise Officers did seal the containers; the export
invoices, packing list and ARE-1 contained the
description of the export goods, consignee, LC No.
and date, details of Advanced Authorization etc.,
which documents were in existence at the time of
export in question. With regard to the alleged delay
in the filing request for conversion of Shipping Bills,
Ld. Advocate relied on the following judgments wherein

6






the higher judicial Fora have struck down the circular
limiting the time for filling request for conversion:
(i) Commissioner of Customs (Export), Tuticorin
Vs. Regin Exports [2026(4) TMI 804-MADRAS HIGH
COURT]
(ii) Messrs Mahalaxmi Rubtech Ltd. Vs. Union of
India [2021 (3) TMI 240-GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
(iii) Colossustex Private Limited and Todi Rayons
Private Limited Vs. Union of India [2023 (9) TMI
313-BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
(iv) Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru [2026(5)
TMI 1748- CESTAT BANGALORE]

In addition, Ld. Advocate submitted that in respect of
the very same Appellant, very same issue and in
respect of the very same Advanced Authorization
License, the co-ordinate Bangalore Bench of CESTAT
vide Final Order Nos.21163-21164/2024 dated
18.09.2024 has directed the conversion of Shipping
Bills as requested by the Appellant.
3.3 In the light of the above submission Ld.
Advocate prayed for setting aside the impugned order
by directing the Commissioner to allow the request for
conversion.
4 . Per Contra , Shri N. Mohan, Ld. Departmental
Representative supported the findings in the

7






impugned order, he would also submit that CBEC
circular requires filing of application for conversion
within a period of 1 month but, however, the
Appellant in this case has made the above request
nearly after 1 year and therefore, the Appellant’s
request has rightly been rejected. He would thus pray
for sustaining the impugned order.
5. We have considered the rival contentions and
perused the documents placed on record, we have
also carefully gone through the various judicial
decisions relied upon during the course of arguments.
The only issue to be considered by us is whether the
rejection of request for conversion of Shipping Bills is
in order?
6. We are tempted to consider the decision of co-
ordinate Bangalore Bench in the Appellant’s own case
as canvassed by the Ld. Advocate. We find that at
para 2, the Bench records under brief facts the
Advanced Authorization Number, one of which is the
same, applicable in this case also. The Bench has
thereafter examined the factual matrices which are
very similar: the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the

8






conversion and thereafter, on Appeal, the
Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the above
rejection and then, the matter travelled to the
Tribunal. At para 5, the Bench records following:
“Further, the learned counsel submitted that the
department has contended that, the bar on
conversion of free shipping bills into advance
license shipping bills is due to the reason that no
examination is carried out in respect of the free
shipping bills, whereas in their case goods were
examined by the Central Excise Officers at the time
of removal. However, even if this contention along
with the reliance on the provisions of the Circular
No. 36/2010-Cus. dated 23.09.2010 were to be
accepted, the request for conversion should have
been made within 3 (three) months from the date
of Let Export Order (LEO) as per para 3(a) of the
Circular dated 23.09.2010. In the present case the
request for conversion was made beyond the period
of 3 (three) months from the date of Let Export
Order (LEO).”

The above only shows the similarity in so far as the
facts are concerned.
7. Further, the Bench has considered the decisions of
various High Courts as referred to supra in the context
of the facts and thereafter allowed the Appeal.

8. We find it suffice to indicate that on the very same
factual matrices the co-ordinate Bangalore Bench has
taken a view, which according to us is just and

9






proper; we do not find any reasons to take a different
view, also for the reason that the time limit prescribed
by the circular which has been relied upon by the
authorities below have been held to be ultra-vires the
statute.

9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the
clear view that the impugned order whereby the
Appellant’s prayer for conversion of Shipping Bills has
been rejected cannot be sustained and therefore, we
set aside the impugned order and allow the Appeal.


(Order pronounced in open court on 06.11.2026)



sd/- sd/-
(VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) (P. DINESHA)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

bv