2022 (12) TMI 898 - AT - Customs

Applicability of BCD exemption - import of 94.93 CBM of Plantation Teak Logs from Malaysia - inadvertent non-claiming BCD exemption available for import of goods under CTH 4401 to 4410 from Malaysia, under Serial number 574 of Notification No. 53/2011-Cus. dated 01.07.2022 - It is the case of the appellant that by mistake Serial number was mentioned as 577 and accordingly the system did not allow the exemption - HELD THAT - The first appellate authority has clearly recorded that the appellant did not submit the Country of Origin Certificate as prescribed, either during the assessment stage or appellate stage. Against this, the learned Consultant would contend that the Bill of Entry itself contains country of Origin as Malaysia, the same is also supported by the filing of supporting document details which mentions the details like IRN Nos. etc., which only required a simple verification by the concerned authorities. But, however, without going into or looking into the Bill of Entry, the first appellate authority has given a wrong finding as to the non-filing of the Country of Origin Certificate. The impugned order has to be set aside but however, with a direction to the first appellate authority to pass a speaking order after considering the Bill of Entry and other supporting documents if any that may be filed by the appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against impugned order-in-appeal regarding BCD exemption for imported goods
- Allegation of not claiming BCD exemption due to a mistake in mentioning serial number
- Request for recalling Bill of Entry and amending it under Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962
- Appeal filed before first appellate authority after rejection by concerned authorities
- Contention regarding verification of documents and Country of Origin Certificate
- Dispute over submission of Country of Origin Certificate before first appellate authority
- Decision to set aside impugned order and remand the case for a speaking order

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of GST & CE (Appeals) regarding the inadvertent failure to claim BCD exemption for importing Plantation Teak Logs from Malaysia. The appellant mentioned the wrong serial number, leading to the system not allowing the exemption. Despite requesting to recall the Bill of Entry and amend it under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the authorities did not accede to the request. The Bill of Entry was assessed and finalized, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was also rejected, leading to the current appeal before the forum.

During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the first appeal was filed to seek a remand order since there was no decision on the requested amendment. The advocate contended that the impugned order was passed without proper verification of documents, including the Country of Origin Certificate. The advocate emphasized that the Country of Origin Certificate is typically uploaded in E-sanchit while filing the Bill of Entry and should have been considered by the authorities. The appellant requested a remand to provide the Country of Origin Certificate again for a proper decision.

On the contrary, the Addl. Commissioner argued that the Country of Origin Certificate was not submitted before the first appellate authority and supported sustaining the lower authorities' order. After hearing both sides and reviewing the orders, the forum found that the first appellate authority incorrectly stated that the appellant did not submit the Country of Origin Certificate. The forum decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the first appellate authority for a speaking order after considering the Bill of Entry and any supporting documents submitted by the appellant. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellant with an opportunity to present the necessary documents for a fair decision.

In conclusion, the forum set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the first appellate authority for a thorough review considering all relevant documents, including the Country of Origin Certificate, to ensure a just and lawful decision.