2016 (10) TMI 726 - AT - Customs

Exemption under N/N. 151/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009 - import of Injection Moulds - certificate of origin - whether the appellants importer, who had imported certain goods from Korea and was entitled to benefit of exemption of Customs duty under Notification No.151/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009, in respect of goods imported under Korea-India Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and whether the appellant can claim the said benefit, subsequent to import and after assessment of the Bill of Entry, by filing appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)? - Rule 15 of the Customs Tariff Rules, 2009 - Held that - the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in rejecting the appeal and it is a clear case of failure of his part to exercise jurisdiction. In the interest of justice, I allow these appeals by way of remand to the adjudicating authority with the direction to verify the claim of the appellant and to allow the same after verifying the authenticity of the certificate of Origin. The appellant is also directed to appear before the adjudicating authority with their representation and supporting within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and seek an opportunity of hearing - matter remanded - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claiming exemption of Customs duty under Notification No.151/2009-Cus for goods imported under Korea-India Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.
2. Appeal process for claiming exemption post-import and after assessment of Bill of Entry.

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported goods from Korea and sought exemption under Notification No.151/2009-Cus. However, due to the unavailability of the certificate of origin at the time of import, they did not claim the exemption in the Bill of Entry and paid the duty. Subsequently, upon receiving the certificate retrospectively, they appealed to modify the assessment for exemption benefit. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals citing non-maintainability and failure to follow the prescribed procedure under Customs Tariff Rules, 2009.

2. The appellant contended that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and cited the Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the Tribunal's authority to decide on dutiability independently. Additionally, a Division Bench Ruling was referenced where the Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit of exemption upon certificate production post-import. The appellant urged for a remand to verify the certificate of origin and allow the exemption benefit in the interest of justice.

3. After considering the arguments, the judge found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal, indicating a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals were allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for verification of the appellant's claim and authenticity of the certificate of origin. The appellant was directed to present their case within 45 days and seek a hearing before the adjudicating authority.

This judgment highlights the importance of following prescribed procedures for claiming exemptions, the jurisdiction of appellate authorities, and the possibility of remand for verification and benefit extension in customs duty cases under preferential trade agreements.