2023 (6) TMI 154 - AT - Customs

Exemption from Basic Customs Duty - invalid Certificate of Origin - scrutiny of COO certificates revealed that it did not bear the Seal and Signature of the Exporter and also the Round Seal of Tanzania Chamber of Commerce - HELD THAT - The rejection of certificate of origin is bad as it was a case of minor discrepancy and was fit to be ignored in terms of Rule 18 of the said rules. Further, the appellant had produced the rectified certificate of origin, which have been wrongly treated as issue of certificate retrospectively. Accordingly, the certificates of origin submitted by the appellant are in order. Therefore, the appellant is held entitled to the benefit of exemption/concessional tariff under Notification No. 96/2008-Cus. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the validity of the Country of Origin (COO) certificate for claiming exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 96/2008, the rejection of the certificate by the Adjudicating Authority, and the subsequent appeal challenging the denial of duty-free tariff benefit.

Validity of COO Certificate:
The importer had filed Bills of Entry for the import of Gold Dore Bar claiming exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 96/2008. However, the COO certificates uploaded by the importer did not bear the Seal and Signature of the Exporter and the Round Seal of Tanzania Chamber of Commerce. The Customs Act, 1962 requires an importer to possess sufficient clearance-related information for the claim, and the Customs Rules empower the Principal Commissioner of Customs to disallow the claim of preferential duty rate. Due to deficiencies in the COO, it was deemed that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) benefit could not be extended to the importer based on the incomplete certificates.

Adjudication and Appeal:
The importer cleared the goods under protest and submitted a replacement set of Certificate of Origin during the adjudication proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the revised certificates, stating that a new certificate can only be issued in specific circumstances and must bear the endorsement of "CERTIFIED TRUE COPY." The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that minor discrepancies in the certificate of origin should not invalidate it as per Rule 18 of Notification No. 29/2015, especially if the certificate corresponds to the imported products. The Tribunal found that the rejection of the certificate was unwarranted as it was a minor discrepancy and the rectified certificate was valid. Consequently, the appellant was held entitled to the benefit of exemption/concessional tariff under Notification No. 96/2008, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the early hearing application and set aside the impugned order, granting the appellant the benefit of exemption/concessional tariff under Notification No. 96/2008. Both the appeal and the early hearing application were allowed, providing relief to the appellant in this case.