9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 555 - AT - CustomsConcession in terms of N/N. 26/2000-Cus dated 1.3.2000 read with N/N. 19/2000 dated 1.3.2000 - Original Authority held that the country of origin certificates could not be accepted as the same have been obtained by filing incorrect declaration with the Sri Lankan Authorities - Held that - the Original Authority categorically held that the goods were not of Chinese origin and as such, anti-dumping duty cannot be levied on them, which is otherwise leviable if the goods are of Chinese origin - Having recorded thus, the Original Authority proceeded to hold that the appellant is not eligible for preferential rate though admittedly, the goods have originated from Sri Lanka. In other words, the goods were held to be of not Chinese origin and also not of Sri Lankan origin. In other words, we note that it is clear that the question of country of origin of the present goods is left hanging without a finding by the Original Authority. The goods were neither of Chinese origin nor of Sri Lankan origin. We note that the same is not a tenable position. The Original Authority has apparently exceeded the jurisdiction in going into the aspects of possible classification of inputs used by the supplier in the manufacture of impugned goods in Sri Lanka. Holding that one of the input and the final product fall under the same four digit classification, it was concluded that the provisions of the Rule 7 have not been fulfilled. More specifically, reference was made by the Original Authority to condition (b) and (d) of the Rule 7. This is based on the certain reports received from Sri Lankan Customs. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Claim for concessional rate of duty based on country of origin certificates. 2. Rejection of preferential treatment under notification no.26/2000-Cus. 3. Confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalties. Analysis: Issue 1: Claim for concessional rate of duty based on country of origin certificates The appellant imported CFL claiming customs duty concession for goods of Sri Lankan origin. The Revenue doubted the claim, alleging the goods were manufactured in China and imported through Sri Lanka. The High Court provisionally released the goods on payment of duty and bank guarantee. The Supreme Court directed the matter to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority. The Original Authority held the country of origin certificates invalid, stating they were obtained based on incorrect information. The Authority rejected the claim for concessional rate, imposing a duty liability and confiscating the goods. Issue 2: Rejection of preferential treatment under notification no.26/2000-Cus The Original Authority rejected the claim for preferential treatment under the notification, citing non-fulfillment of conditions specified under Customs Tariff Rules. The Authority disallowed the concessional rate, confirmed the duty liability, and ordered confiscation of goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. Penalties were imposed on the appellants under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 3: Confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalties The appellants contested the findings, emphasizing the validity of the country of origin certificates and past clearances by Delhi Customs Authorities. They argued for adherence to international law obligations and bilateral agreements. The Adjudicating Authority and the appellants' arguments were examined. The Tribunal noted a contradiction in the findings, stating the goods were neither of Chinese nor Sri Lankan origin. The Tribunal found the Original Authority exceeded jurisdiction by delving into the classification of inputs used in manufacturing the goods. The Tribunal held that denial of concession despite valid certificates was legally untenable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals. This judgment highlights the importance of accurate country of origin certificates in claiming concessional rates of duty, the necessity of fulfilling conditions specified under relevant notifications, and the need for authorities to stay within their jurisdictional limits during adjudication processes.
|
