2018 (3) TMI 124 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 46/2011-Cus. - rejection of benefit on the grounds that the goods had been exported by M/s. Panasia International Limited, Dubai under Invoice Nos. 0361/13-14, 0362/13-14, 0392/13-14 all dated 31.3.2014, who however are in no way connected with the AIFTA certificates - Whether the AIFTA certificates produced by the appellant can be accepted for the purpose of availing duty exemption benefits under N/N. 46/2011, when the related commercial invoices have not been issued from the originating country but have been issued from third parties? Held that - the appellants have adduced sufficient proof to establish that the impugned goods, though invoiced by Panasia International, UAE, to the appellant, are of very same ones which have been originally invoiced by Myanmar Timber Enterprises, Myanmar to Concorde Commodities, Singapore and then to M/s. Panasia Agro India Limited. The appellants have been also able to sufficiently establish the seminal connection and linkage with the imported goods invoiced at M/s. Panasia International Limited, Dubai and the AIFTA certificates submitted by them - the AIFTA certificates very much covers the impugned goods which have been imported by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of duty exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus based on AIFTA certificates.
2. Correlation between commercial invoices and AIFTA certificates for duty exemption.

Analysis:
1. The case involved M/s. Olam Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. importing Teak Round Logs with duty assessed at ?2,25,04,169. The appellants later filed ex-bond Bills of Entry claiming duty exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus based on AIFTA certificates from Myanmar Timber Enterprises. The original authority rejected the claim, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the goods were consigned directly from Myanmar Timber Enterprises to them, despite invoicing through intermediaries like Concorde Commodities and Panasia International Limited. The AIFTA certificates were submitted to support this claim, while the respondent contended that the goods invoiced by Panasia International were not connected to the AIFTA certificates.

3. The tribunal examined the AIFTA Procedures, emphasizing the requirement of a through Bill of Lading, AIFTA Certificate of Origin, original commercial invoice, and other supporting documents for claiming AIFTA benefits. Article 22 allowed for sales invoices by third parties, provided the product met AIFTA Rules of Origin requirements.

4. After reviewing the AIFTA Certificate and related invoices, the tribunal found sufficient evidence linking the imported goods to the AIFTA certificates, despite invoicing by Panasia International. The tribunal concluded that the AIFTA certificates covered the imported goods, and the issue of invoice by a third-country party did not negate the benefit of the AIFTA certificate or Notification No. 46/2011-Cus.

5. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per law. The decision highlighted the importance of establishing a connection between commercial invoices and AIFTA certificates for availing duty exemption benefits under relevant notifications.