1983 (1) TMI 254 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of preferential rate of Customs duty on goods of U.K. origin.
2. Claim for preferential rate of duty and submission of certificate of origin within the prescribed period.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the applicability of the preferential rate of Customs duty on goods of U.K. origin. The appellant imported goods classified under specific tariff items that allowed for a preferential rate of duty for goods of U.K. origin. However, the appellant did not initially claim this preferential rate of duty at the time of entry of the goods for home consumption. The dispute arose when the appellant later sought a re-assessment of the goods and refund of the differential duty paid. The lower authorities rejected the claim due to the appellant's failure to produce the required certificate of origin in the proper form as per the U.K. India Trade Agreement Rules.

2. The second issue revolved around the claim for preferential rate of duty and the submission of the certificate of origin within the prescribed period. The appellant argued that by indicating "UK-London" in the column for country of origin on the Bill of Entry, they had effectively made a claim for assessment at the preferential rate of duty. However, the Tribunal held that filling in this column did not constitute a valid claim for the preferential rate. Additionally, the appellant failed to diligently pursue obtaining the certificate of origin, only requesting it from the suppliers after a significant delay following the import and clearance of the goods. This delay in submitting the certificate within six months from the date of duty payment further weakened the appellant's case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, emphasizing the importance of timely and proper documentation to support claims for preferential rates of duty. The appellant's failure to make a valid claim at the time of entry and the delayed submission of the required certificate of origin led to the rejection of their appeal for re-assessment and refund of differential duty.