2015 (9) TMI 928 - AT - Customs

Import of Comoros Cloves - discrepancy in Certificate of Origin - Eligibility to avail benefit of Notification No. 96/2008 - origin was not certified by the exporter from the exporting country - Held that - Authorities have been given instructions, which when read holistically, would mean that minor discrepancies would not ipso facto invalidate the certificate of origin if the same in fact corresponds to the product imported. It can be seen that the certificate of origin needs to issued by the government authorities designated by the government of exporting beneficiary country. In the case in hand, as already held by us the certificate of origin has been insured by African Commodities House Ltd. seems to us to be an authority approved by the union of Comoros. This our view is fortified from the fact that identical goods imported at other various ICDs were certified by the same issuing authority and was accepted by the revenue authorities and not disputed the issuing authorities credentials. - goods which are imported by the appellants are eligible for benefit of Notification NO. 96/2008 as amended by the said benefit is being denied only for the procedural discrepancies. We find strong force in the contentions raised by the learner consultant that the ratio of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diagnostic Centre (2014 (10) TMI 440 - SUPREME COURT) will apply in this case. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 96/2008 for exemption of duty on imported goods.
2. Validity of the certificate of origin for availing preferential concessions.
3. Compliance with rules of origin and certification requirements.
4. Discrepancies in the certificate of origin and procedural lapses.
5. Applicability of the liberal approach in interpreting exemption notifications.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 96/2008
The appeal challenged an order denying the benefit claimed under Notification No. 96/2008 for importing "Comoros Cloves." The Tribunal analyzed the notification's provisions and amendments, confirming that the goods imported fell within the scope of the notification. The notification required proving the origin of goods and adherence to the Rules of Origin, which the appellant satisfied by importing agricultural products from the Union of Comoros.

Issue 2: Validity of Certificate of Origin
The dispute centered on the validity of the certificate of origin submitted by the appellant. The lower authorities questioned the certification process, specifically the absence of the exporter's signature at a designated point. The Tribunal examined the certificate, noting that it was signed by "African Commodities House Ltd." The Tribunal referred to the procedural requirements for certificate issuance and found that minor discrepancies should not invalidate the certificate if it corresponds to the imported product.

Issue 3: Compliance with Certification Requirements
The Departmental representative highlighted deficiencies in the certificate, emphasizing the need for exporter certification as per the rules of origin. The Tribunal referenced the procedure for certificate issuance, emphasizing that the certificate must be issued by designated government authorities. Despite procedural lapses, the Tribunal concluded that the issuing authority, "African Commodities House Ltd.," was likely approved by the Union of Comoros, as confirmed by accepted certificates at other locations.

Issue 4: Discrepancies and Procedural Lapses
The Departmental representative and lower authorities pointed out procedural deficiencies, including the absence of the exporter's signature and delayed submission of a revalidated certificate. However, the Tribunal, considering the holistic reading of the rules and the certificate's correspondence to the imported goods, found the procedural discrepancies insufficient to deny the benefit under the notification.

Issue 5: Liberal Approach in Interpretation
The Tribunal invoked the principle of interpreting exemption notifications strictly at first and then adopting a liberal approach within the notification's parameters. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized applying a liberal approach in cases like the present one, where procedural discrepancies did not affect the goods' eligibility for exemption.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, directing the lower authorities to assess the bill of entry extending the benefit of Notification No. 96/2008 to allow clearance of the imported goods.