CESTAT Orders Processing Of Simpson & Co’s ₹6.52 Lakh Drawback Claim, Says Circular Cannot Add A Section 149 Time Limit

The appellant sought conversion of 48 shipping bills from the Advance Authorisation Scheme to the Drawback Scheme.

Its application dated 26 March 2012 included three air-export shipping bills; supporting documents were supplied on 24 April 2012.

The Commissioner of Customs (Exports) approved conversion of all 48 bills on 30 July 2012, and a drawback brand rate was subsequently fixed.

Although drawback was sanctioned for 18 of the 21 bills claimed, the claim of ₹6,52,423 for the three air-export bills was rejected because conversion had been approved by the Sea Commissionerate and the request was said not to have been made to the Air Commissionerate within three months of the Let Export Orders under Circular No. 36/2010-Cus.

Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, as applicable at the relevant time, permitted amendment of documents after export on the basis of documentary evidence that existed at the time of export; it did not itself prescribe the three-month limitation relied upon in the impugned order.

A Board circular could not, by itself, create a statutory bar absent from the governing provision.

The Tribunal relied on Colossustex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2024 (387) E.L.T. 277 (Bom.)] and CC (Exports), Tuticorin v. Regin Exports [2026 (4) TMI 804 (Mad.)] on the limitation issue, and on Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India, Collector of Malabar v. Erimmal Ebrahim Hajee and G.J. Fernandes v. State of Mysore for the principle that administrative circulars and guidelines are not law.

An unchallenged conversion approval could not be reopened at the drawback-sanction stage without being dealt with in accordance with law.

The Tribunal found that the application of 26 March 2012 covered the disputed bills and that the earlier application of 10 November 2011 concerned different bills; the impugned order had therefore identified the wrong application as relevant.

The conversion had been approved after verification and had not been set aside or withdrawn.

Since Section 149 contained no three-month limitation, the circular could not independently supply a statutory ground for refusing the claim.

Nor could the drawback authority reopen the subsisting conversion approval at the sanction stage.

It set aside the impugned order and directed the jurisdictional authority to process the claim of ₹6,52,423 for the three disputed shipping bills in accordance with law.

The appellant was entitled to consequential relief as per law, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.