2015 (4) TMI 25 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of the benefit of Notification No. 135/2010-Cus dated 31/12/2010 - Demand of differential duty - Held that - The contract entered into by the appellant with the foreign supplier M/s. Trafigura Pte Ltd makes it absolutely clear that the coal will be supplied from Indonesia, in terms of clause 7. The country of origin furnished by the appellant before the Customs authorities gives the details of the quantity shipped, the vessel in which the goods were carried, the departure date of the vessel and all other relevant particulars. If one sees the bills of lading submitted by the appellant, all these details are tally and therefore, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever from where the impugned goods have originated. Even the surveyor's report certifying the weight of the goods also confirms the country of origin as Indonesia. In these circumstances, the denial of benefit of Notification No. 135/2010 in respect of the goods originating from Indonesia is clearly not sustainable. Thus, the appellant has made out a strong case for waiver of the dues adjudged. Accordingly, we grant unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Differential duty demand confirmation against the appellant by denying the benefit of a specific customs duty notification.
- Dispute regarding the country of origin of the goods imported.

Analysis:
1. Differential Duty Demand Confirmation:
The appeal and stay petition were filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, upholding the assessment order confirming a differential duty demand against the appellant. The appellant, M/s. Gupta Coal (I) Pvt. Ltd., was denied the benefit of Notification No. 135/2010-Cus, which provided for a concessional basic customs duty of 3% ad valorem for coal of Indonesian origin. The appellant contended that the denial of the benefit was unsustainable as the value of goods was not disputed, and the dispute was solely regarding the country of origin.

2. Dispute over Country of Origin:
The appellant had entered into a contract with a foreign supplier for the supply of coal from Indonesia. The assessing officer sought to finalize the assessment, but the benefit of the customs duty notification was denied due to discrepancies in the invoice numbers mentioned in the certificate of origin and the commercial invoice. The appellant argued that all other relevant details, such as the quantity of coal, the port of loading, the vessel details, and the bills of lading, confirmed the Indonesian origin of the goods. The Tribunal examined the contract, bills of lading, and surveyor's report, all of which supported the appellant's claim regarding the country of origin. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the denial of the benefit of the customs duty notification for goods originating from Indonesia was not sustainable in law. As a result, the Tribunal granted unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of dues adjudged against the appellant and stayed the recovery of the dues during the appeal process.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurately establishing the country of origin of imported goods for availing benefits under specific customs duty notifications. It also emphasizes the significance of documentary evidence, such as contracts, invoices, bills of lading, and surveyor reports, in resolving disputes related to customs assessments.