2005 (5) TMI 424 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal allowing benefit of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. for imported goods of Sri Lankan origin despite discrepancy in wattage declaration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Appeal Against Order-in-Appeal:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, where the benefit of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. for goods imported by the respondent was allowed. The Revenue contested this decision based on a discrepancy in the wattage declaration of the imported lamps.

2. Verification of Goods' Origin:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the benefit of the notification after verifying a certificate produced by the respondent, which was further confirmed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). It was established that the imported goods were indeed of Sri Lankan origin, as claimed by the respondent.

3. Discrepancy in Wattage Declaration:
The Revenue's contention revolved around the difference in wattage declaration between the Bill of Entry and the certificate of origin. While the Bill of Entry stated 18 watts, the verification revealed the lamps were of 12 watts. Despite this discrepancy, the Tribunal found that the essential criterion for the notification was the goods' Sri Lankan origin, which was undisputed and verified by the DRI.

4. Interpretation of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus.:
Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. provides for customs duty exemption for goods of Sri Lankan origin upon satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification's focus was on the origin of the goods, not minor discrepancies in declarations such as wattage. As the imported goods were confirmed to be of Sri Lankan origin, the benefit of the notification was rightfully allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. Final Decision and Dismissal of Appeal:
The Tribunal, after thorough examination, found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It was concluded that the discrepancy in wattage declaration did not impact the eligibility for the notification's exemption, as the primary requirement of Sri Lankan origin was fulfilled and verified. The appeal was thus rejected, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the legal judgment, focusing on the interpretation of the notification, verification of goods' origin, and the significance of fulfilling the essential criteria for customs duty exemptions.