9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of country of origin for imported goods, reliance on expert opinion, discrepancies in documentation, acceptance of certificate of origin.
The case involved the import of cloves declared to be of Srilankan origin, but found to be of Madagascar origin upon testing. The original authority confiscated the goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, citing lack of standardized parameters for determining origin and discrepancies in documentation. The Commissioner accepted the importer's certificate of origin and found fault with the investigating officers for not verifying its genuineness. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged this decision. The Revenue argued that the Senior Scientist's opinion, markings on gunny bags, and discrepancies in documentation supported the original authority's decision. They emphasized the rules of determination of origin and the Assistant Commissioner's role in verifying conditions regarding origin. The Revenue contended that the Senior Scientist's opinion should not have been rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the original authority's decision based on the designated authority's certification of the goods as Srilankan origin. The Commissioner did not address all grounds raised by the respondents, but emphasized the acceptance of the certificate of origin issued by the designated agency. The appeal did not sufficiently explain the rejection of the certificate based on expert opinion and highlighted the varying properties of agricultural produce based on region. The judgment dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting the certification by the designated authority and the lack of justification to reject it. The judgment highlighted the importance of following prescribed rules for determining origin and emphasized the acceptance of the certificate issued by the designated agency. The decision upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s ruling in favor of the importer.
|
