9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1347 - AT - CustomsEligibility for benefit of customs duty exemption under Notification No.26/2000-Customs dated 01.03.2000 in terms of India Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement - imported goods classified under CTI 0802 8090 and declared as Sri Lanka Areca Nuts with value of USD 351000 for 90 MTs - imported goods fulfill the requirement of DGFT Notification No. 35/2015-2020 dated 17.01.2017, in order to claim the import of impugned goods as Free or not - Country of origin - HELD THAT - Neither the jurisdictional Customs authorities have drawn the samples of the impugned goods for testing by the Departmental Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) or the laboratories certified/approved by the Port Health Officer (PHO)/ Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). Further, when the test results were not acceptable to the appellants, facility for re-testing have not been conducted to provide a reasonable evidence on the test results, as per the guidelines prescribed by CBEC. However, the appellants have got the impugned goods tested in RCA Laboratories, Mumbai, which is approved by the FSSAI and the rest result in report dated 02.07.2018 provides the results of chemical testing, microbiological identification, tracing of residues and other trace metals, to conclude that it cannot recognize the country of origin of the tested samples on the basis of above factors. In the above factual matrix, it is opined that the test results obtained either by the Department or by the appellants do not provide any concrete evidence for determination of the origin of the imported goods. Hence it is not feasible to take the same for arriving at the conclusion of the disputed issue. From the documents/evidences produced to support the fact about the country of origin of the impugned goods is of Sri Lanka, it is opined that country of origin (COO) as stated by the appellants is correct, and there are no independent evidence adduced by the Department to prove against such fact. Thus, the impugned goods are eligible for the customs duty exemption under Notification No.26/2000-Customs dated 01.03.2000. Value of imported goods - whether it is in compliance with MIP notification of the DGFT or not - HELD THAT - The declared value of goods was amended from USD 43,200 to USD 70,200 in CUSDEC documents No. E 60934, No. E 60269, No. E 60935 in respect of 18 MTs of areca nuts each (altogether 54 MTs); and another CUSDEC document No. E 60271 was also amended from USD 86,400 to USD 140,400 for 36 MTS of areca nuts by Sri Lanka customs authorities on 12.12.2018. On the above basis, and as per the declared value in the B/E, the average value of imported goods per Kg. works out to Rs.252/- which is in compliance with the MIP of Rs.251/- notified by the DGFT, Ministry of Commerce Industry in Notification No.35/2015-2020 dated 17.01.2017. Thus, we are of the considered view that the areca nuts imported by the appellants from Sri Lanka can be allowed for import as Free . Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the authorities below, that the imported goods have violated the legal provisions under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, is not sustainable - In the absence of any evidence produced by the department to prove the violations in respect of imported goods as per Section 111(d) and 111(m) ibid, the proposal for confiscation of the impugned goods and imposition of redemption fine by the authorities below are not legally sustainable. The impugned goods classifiable under CTI 0802 8090 are eligible for availing the benefit of customs duty exemption under Notification No.26/2000-Customs dated 01.03.2000 in terms of India Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement read with Notification No. 19/2000-Customs (N.T), dated 01.03.2000 and DGFT Notification No. 35/2015-2020 dated 17.01.2017 - the impugned order upholding confirmation of adjudged demands in the original order does not stand the scrutiny of law and therefore is not legally sustainable. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the imported goods for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 26/2000-Customs dated 01.03.2000. 2. Compliance of the imported goods with DGFT Notification No. 35/2015-2020 dated 17.01.2017. 3. Legal sustainability of the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 upholding confirmation of adjudged demands. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Customs Duty Exemption: The Tribunal examined whether the imported goods, declared as 'Sri Lanka Areca Nuts' and classified under CTI 0802 8090, were eligible for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 26/2000-Customs dated 01.03.2000. The exemption is contingent upon proving the goods' origin from Sri Lanka as per the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin under the Free Trade Agreement between Sri Lanka and India) Rules, 2000. The Tribunal noted that the appellants provided Certificates of Origin (COO) issued by the Ministry of Industry & Commerce, Sri Lanka. These certificates were confirmed by Sri Lankan authorities. The Tribunal found that the customs authorities in India did not follow the prescribed procedure for verifying the origin of goods. The test report from Areca nut Research & Development Foundation, Mangalore, which suggested Indonesian origin, was based on visual characteristics and lacked conclusive evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the need for re-testing as per CBEC guidelines, which was not conducted. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellants satisfactorily proved the goods' Sri Lankan origin, making them eligible for the customs duty exemption under the specified notification. 2. Compliance with DGFT Notification: The Tribunal assessed whether the imported goods met the Minimum Import Price (MIP) requirement as per DGFT Notification No. 35/2015-2020 dated 17.01.2017. The appellants demonstrated that the full payment for the goods was made through banking channels and provided amended export documents from Sri Lanka Customs reflecting the correct value. The average value per kilogram of the imported goods was Rs. 252/-, which complied with the MIP of Rs. 251/-. The Tribunal found that the appellants met the MIP requirement and concluded that the imported goods could be allowed as "Free" under the Foreign Trade Policy. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, were not justified. 3. Legal Sustainability of the Impugned Order: The Tribunal reviewed the impugned order dated 13.06.2023, which upheld the original order confirming customs duty demands, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. The Tribunal found that the test report from ARDF, Mangalore, was not reliable and that the customs authorities failed to provide concrete evidence against the appellants' claims. The Tribunal also noted that the appellants' compliance with the MIP requirement was adequately demonstrated. Citing relevant case law, including judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order did not stand up to legal scrutiny. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants, granting consequential relief as per law. Conclusion: The Tribunal's judgment comprehensively addressed the issues of customs duty exemption eligibility, compliance with DGFT notification, and the legal sustainability of the impugned order. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.
|
