9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 996 - AT - CustomsExemption from customs duty - preferential Trade Agreement with Asian Countries - Whether the defect of non mention of invoice number in the Certificate of Origin can be enough to reject the certificate of origin and debar the appellant from benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011? - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the consignment was imported by MV Intrepid which sailed on 04.11.2011 from Indonesia carrying 51,397,979 MT of steal coal (non-coking). It is also not in dispute that the consignment imported by the appellant is part of the same cargo. The appellant have sought to rely on the country of origin certificate which contains these details relating to date of sailing and name of ship and the quantity of cargo. The said certificate does not contain the invoice number of either the original purchaser or of the appellant. Mere non-mention of the invoice number in the certificate of Origin is not sufficient reason to deny the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011. The purpose of the Notification is to grant exemption under the preferential Trade Agreement with Asian Countries and from the certificate of country of origin produced by the appellant. It is sufficiently established that the goods have indeed originated in Indonesia and were wholly obtained in Indonesia. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
- Denial of benefit under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 due to non-mention of invoice number in the certificate of origin. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the denial of benefits under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011. The appellant, Nirma Ltd., had purchased coal on high seas sale basis from a consignment originally bought by Anik Industries Limited. The appellant argued that the entire consignment arrived by the ship MV Intrepid from Indonesia, and the certificate of origin confirmed the goods were wholly obtained in Indonesia. The appellant contended that the omission of the invoice number in the certificate of origin was an inadvertent error and should not lead to the denial of benefits. The appellant also highlighted the satisfaction of all conditions under the Customs Tariff Rules of 2009 and Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011. The Authorized Representative, on the other hand, relied on the strict compliance requirement of the Notification and referenced a previous court decision to emphasize the necessity of adhering to the terms of the Notification. The representative argued that the omission of the invoice number in the certificate of origin was a crucial factor for denying the benefit under the Notification. Upon examination, the Tribunal noted that the consignment imported by the appellant was part of the same cargo that arrived on MV Intrepid from Indonesia. The certificate of origin confirmed that the goods were wholly obtained in Indonesia, meeting the criteria under the relevant rules. The Tribunal found that the condition of direct consignment from Indonesia to India was also satisfied. The only remaining issue was whether the absence of the invoice number in the certificate of origin justified the denial of benefits under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011. The Tribunal observed that there was no explicit requirement in the Rules or Notification mandating the mention of the invoice number in the certificate of origin. Despite the omission, all other details in the certificate aligned with the appellant's claim, establishing the origin of the goods in Indonesia. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the mere absence of the invoice number should not be a sufficient reason to reject the certificate of origin and deny the benefit under the Notification. The purpose of the Notification was to grant exemptions under the preferential trade agreement, and since the goods were proven to originate in Indonesia, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
|
