2017 (3) TMI 700 - AT - Customs

Refund - BCD - import from Japan - duty was paid at the time of import but refund claimed subsequently after obtaining certified copy of certificate of origin - Notification No. 69/2011-Cus dated 29.07.2011 - Held that - the appellant failed to produce the specimen signatures of the authorities who issued the certificate of country of origin. But in the Procedures, no such condition is seen stated. Further, in Part 2-Product Specific Rules, in Operational Certification Procedures lays down that in case of doubt of certificate of origin the Customs Authorities of the importing country can call for information from the exporting country. The department has no case that they conducted enquiry and found that the certificate copy is fake/forged - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Acceptance of certified copy of certificate of origin for exemption of Basic Customs Duty (BCD).
2. Intimation requirement for availing exemption benefits.
3. Validity of certified copy of certificate of origin.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of EPDM Rubber from Japan by the appellants. They cleared the goods by paying BCD without availing exemption due to misplacement of the original certificate of origin. Subsequently, they obtained a certified copy and filed a refund claim, which was rejected by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant argued that under Notification No. 55/2011, a refund claim can be filed at a later stage if the certificate of origin was not processed at the time of import. The appellant contended that they followed the prescribed procedure for obtaining a certified copy of the certificate of origin and filing the refund claim, as allowed by the rules.

3. The respondent contended that the appellant did not intimate the department about their intention to avail the exemption benefit and only provided a Xerox copy of the certificate of origin at the time of import. The authorities raised concerns about the absence of the original certificate and the lack of specimen signatures of the issuing authorities. However, the rules did not mandate the submission of specimen signatures, and the Customs Authorities could seek clarification from the exporting country in case of doubt.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant rules, specifically Rule 3 of the Implementing Procedures, which allowed for the acceptance of a certified copy of the certificate of origin in cases where the original was lost. The Tribunal found that the appellant's submission of the Xerox copy at the time of import served as intimation of their intention to claim exemption. Moreover, the certified copy obtained later was in accordance with the prescribed procedure, as outlined in sub rule (f) of Rule 3.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the refund claim was unjustified, as there was no valid ground to doubt the validity of the certified copy of the certificate of origin. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.