2023 (11) TMI 912 - AT - Customs

Levy of ASEAN India Free Trade Preferential Tariff rate of duty - benefit of Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011 (Sl.No.440) - HELD THAT - The appellants have submitted that as the original consignment was split up into five smaller imports, therefore, common invoice number had to be split up into five sets as A, B, C, D and E - it is found that this argument of the appellant to carry substantive force and be meaningful. Particularly when collectively the quantity of the five import invoice (72 MTs each) total up to the impugned quantity (360 MTs) and all other particulars of the import invoices are in sync with the details furnished in the impugned certificate - It is settled law that procedural lapses, if any, cannot come in the way of disallowing a substantive benefit to the party, as long as there was no prejudice caused to the contents and the intentions of the documents. As long as the language of the Notification is clear and unambiguous, it is not for the courts to go behind its prescription. Further, in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment and regard has to be given to the plain language and clear meaning of the words. In accordance with the provisions of Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods) Rules 2009 under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of member states of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the (Republic of India), we note, that the appropriate authority has issued the certificate upended with the case records and referred to by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). A clerical error, if at best any, would not merit rejection of the said original certificate in its entirety and thereof deprive the benefit thereof to the person availing the same. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order is bereft of any merit and is liable to be set aside - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012
- Benefit of Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011

Summary:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Softel Overseas Private Limited against the Order-in-Appeal No. 259/Cus(Apprg)/Kol(P)/2013 dated 26/27.11.2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant sought the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 but later realized they were eligible for a lower duty rate under Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal citing discrepancies in the certificate of origin issued by the Thailand Government.

Regarding the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CUS, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal due to discrepancies in the certificate of origin issued by the Thailand Government. The Ld. Commissioner highlighted that the certificate did not contain the necessary invoice numbers and tick marks as required by the notification. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this assessment, noting that the relevant invoice number was indicated in the certificate. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument that the original consignment was split into five smaller imports, explaining the subdivision of the invoice number into A, B, C, D, and E. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not prevent a substantive benefit if no prejudice is caused.

In relation to the benefit of Notification No.46/2011-CUS, the Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal. The Tribunal held that the omission in the certificate of origin did not violate any provisions that would warrant denial of the exemption. It was established that a clerical error, if any, should not deprive the appellant of the benefit entitled to them. The Tribunal cited precedents to support the principle that procedural formalities should not impede the grant of a substantive benefit.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.