2024 (12) TMI 889 - AT - Customs

Denial of SAFTA Notification benefits due to doubts about the origin of imported goods - rejection of appeals filed by the appellant on the ground that at the time of clearance of the goods, the importer has forgone the exemption benefit under SAFTA since they had cleared the goods on payment of applicable duty under protest - failure to provide the origin related information as indicated in FORM 1 in terms of para 4 of Rule 5 of N/N. 81/2020 dated 21.08.2020. HELD THAT - Under similar facts and circumstances, the benefit of the SAFTA notification which had not been claimed initially, has been allowed to the appellant at a later stage on submission of the country of origin certificate. Further, in the present case we observe that the appellant has produced the country of origin certificate as desired under the Notification 99/2011-Customs dated 09.11.2011, as is evident from the details incorporated by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the table provided at paragraph 1 of the impugned order dated 23.01.2023. Thus, there are no reason to deny the benefit of the SAFTA Notification to the appellant. Since the appellant has fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the N/N. 99/2011-Customs dated 09.11.2011, it is held that the appellant are eligible for the benefit of the said notification. The impugned orders denying the benefit of the SAFTA N/N. 99/2011-Customs dated 09.11.2011 to the impugned goods imported by the appellant vide the six bills of entry are not sustainable - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:

1. Denial of SAFTA Notification benefits due to doubts about the origin of imported goods.
2. Rejection of appeals on the grounds of time-bar and procedural non-compliance.
3. Evaluation of whether the appellant fulfilled the conditions for availing customs duty exemption under SAFTA.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of SAFTA Notification Benefits:

The appellant imported Soya Acid Oil from Bangladesh, claiming a 'nil' customs duty rate under the SAFTA Notification No. 99/2011-Customs. The assessing officer denied this benefit, citing doubts about the originality of the goods, as soyabean oil is not abundantly available in Bangladesh. The officer required verification of the SAFTA certificate of origin and requested additional documents to confirm the regional value criteria. The appellant failed to provide the necessary documents, leading to the assessment of duties and clearance of goods under protest.

The appellant argued that the goods were classified under the correct Customs Tariff Heading and were eligible for exemption as they were wholly produced in the exporter country, as indicated by the 'A' mark in the certificate of origin. They referenced previous orders where similar imports were granted exemption, asserting that the principle of natural justice was not followed, as they were not given an opportunity to submit the required documents.

2. Rejection of Appeals on Procedural Grounds:

The appeal concerning Customs Appeal No. 75762 of 2021 was initially rejected due to a delay of six days beyond the statutory 60-day period. However, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the authority to condone a delay of up to 30 days beyond the statutory period. Given that the delay was within this condonable period, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and include this appeal in the common order for all six appeals, as the issues involved were identical.

3. Fulfillment of Conditions for Customs Duty Exemption:

The Tribunal examined whether the appellant met the conditions for exemption under the SAFTA Notification. It was observed that the appellant submitted the country of origin certificate as required by Notification No. 99/2011-Customs. The certificate indicated that the goods were wholly produced in the exporter country, thus satisfying the conditions for exemption.

The Tribunal also considered past orders where similar claims were allowed, noting that the benefit of exemption can be claimed subsequently if initially forgone, provided the payment was made under protest. In this case, the appellant had paid the duty under protest, preserving their right to contest the denial of benefits.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant fulfilled the conditions for availing the SAFTA Notification benefits and that the denial of such benefits by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed all six appeals, granting the appellant the consequential relief as per law. The decision emphasized adherence to the principles of natural justice and the appellant's right to claim benefits under the SAFTA Notification upon fulfilling the stipulated conditions.

← Previous Next →