2024 (3) TMI 1298 - AT - Customs

Exemption from Basic Customs Duty - Import of Lithium-Ion Batteries falling under Customs Tariff Heading 85076000 - Time limitation for submission of Country of Origin certificate - the goods are originating from the Republic of Korea - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have rejected the appeals on the ground of being time barred. There is no requirement to file a petition for condonation of delay as the said period during the Pandemic has been excluded by the Hon ble Apex Court in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER . The rejection of appeals as time barred cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration of the issue of benefit of exemption notification. In such reconsideration of the issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall look into the Country of Origin certificate issued retrospectively as per the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of India and the Republic of Korea) Rules, 2009 to ascertain the eligibility of exemption. The decision of Tribunal in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. KOMOS AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD. 2023 (9) TMI 1446 - CESTAT CHENNAI on similar issue shall also be looked into by the appellate authority. The impugned orders are set aside - The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall dispose of the case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal involves issues of time limitation for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the eligibility of the appellant for exemption from duty under a specific notification due to the lack of a Country of Origin certificate at the time of filing the Bill of Entry.

Time Limitation Issue:
The appellant filed Bill of Entry for import of Lithium-Ion Batteries but could not produce the Country of Origin certificate initially. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as time-barred due to a delay of 95 days. However, the appellant argued that the period during the Covid-19 pandemic, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order, should be excluded in computing the period of limitation. The Tribunal agreed that the appeals were wrongly rejected on the ground of being time-barred and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration.

Exemption Eligibility Issue:
The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of exemption notification due to the belated production of the Country of Origin certificate. The appellant contended that the certificate was issued retrospectively, and as per relevant rules, the country of origin can be produced within a year. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, the appellant argued that retrospective issuance of the certificate should allow the benefit of exemption notification. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the retrospective Country of Origin certificate and the previous Tribunal decision in the reconsideration of the exemption eligibility issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, remanding both appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration within a period of two months. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to review the eligibility for exemption in light of the retrospective Country of Origin certificate and the relevant Tribunal decision. The rejection of the appeals based on time limitation was deemed incorrect due to the excluded period during the Covid-19 pandemic, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order.