2023 (12) TMI 690 - AT - Customs

Concessional rate of Customs Duty to goods of Indonesian origin - benefit of notification and no. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011 - certificate of origin rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the grounds that the said certificate of origin did not mention the details of the impugned imports - HELD THAT - Notification No. 46/2011 grants special concession rate of custom duty to the goods originating from specified countries listed in appendix II of the said notification. The Appellant claimed to have imported 50,000/- MTs. of Indonesian origin coal by vessel MV. Jindal Varad to India. The bill of entry, the commercial invoice, the bill of lading and the certificate of origin all mentioned the name of vessel MV. Jindal Varad. It is noticed that the original adjudicating authority has pointed out that the invoice no. and date mentioned in the country of origin certificate does not match with the invoice number and date of the invoice presented by the importer. The certificate covers a quantity of 70,000 MTs. of steam coal of Indonesian origin consigned for from PT Yastra Energy Indonesia to Farlin Energy Commodities Dubai UAE. The number and date of invoice on the certificate produced by the Appellant as shown as (1) 0002455/BJM/2013 dt. 22.07.2013 whereas, the imports are covered under invoice no. FECFCUST/13-1029 dt. 11.08.2013. The said order of Commissioner (Appeal) is not a speaking order. He has not examined the reasons given by the Appellant in its appeal before Commissioner (Appeal). The impugned order is therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeal) to gives specific findings on all the points raised by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeal) - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal against the demand of Customs Duty on imported goods based on a certificate of origin and the denial of special concessional rate of Customs Duty.

Summary:

Issue 1: Certificate of Origin Deficiency
The Appellant imported goods claiming benefit under notification no. 46/2011 but faced rejection of the certificate of origin by the original adjudicating authority due to missing details. The Appellant failed to provide a corrected certificate, leading to the confirmation of the custom duty demand. The Appellant argued that the defect was procedural and technical, not substantial, citing relevant case laws. The Commissioner (Appeal) did not address the grounds raised by the Appellant, resulting in a non-speaking order. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for specific findings on all points raised.

Issue 2: Country of Origin
The Tribunal analyzed the requirements of Notification No. 46/2011 and the rules determining the origin of goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement. The Appellant claimed the goods were of Indonesian origin, emphasizing the vessel's route and the certificate of origin. Discrepancies in the invoice numbers were noted, but the Appellant argued they did not negate the Indonesian origin of the goods. The original adjudicating authority's rejection was based on these discrepancies, which the Commissioner (Appeal) failed to adequately address. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order lacking in examination and remanded the case for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the need for specific findings on all grounds raised by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeal).