2020 (9) TMI 526 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 27 days from the date of limitation before commissioner (Appeals) - Delay was within condonable period of thirty days - sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within limitation period - Benefit of exemption - certificate of origin - HELD THAT - Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation, vide the impugned order dated 28.07.2020, which is in violation of the direction of the Hon ble Supreme court in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER . Accordingly, the present appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. The rejection of certificate of origin is bad as it was a case of minor discrepancy and was fit to be ignored in terms of Rule 18 of the said rules. Further, the appellant had produced the rectified certificate of origin, which have been wrongly treated as issue of certificate retrospectively - the certificates of origin submitted by the appellant are in order. The appellant is held entitled to the benefit of exemption/ concessional tariff under Notification No. 096/2008-Cus. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 096/2008-Cus
2. Dismissal of appeal on the ground of limitation
3. Interpretation of Rule 15(8) of Duty Free Tariff Preference Scheme for the Least Developed Countries Rules, 2008
4. Application of Rule 18 of the said Rules regarding minor discrepancies in the certificate of origin

Analysis:

1. Denial of Benefit under Notification No. 096/2008-Cus:
The appellant's appeal revolved around the denial of benefit under Notification No. 096/2008-Cus due to discrepancies in the Certificate of Origin (COO) submitted for the import of 'Gum Arabic' from Chad. The Assistant Commissioner had denied the concessional tariff benefit based on the revised COO submitted by the appellant, which was deemed to be issued retrospectively. However, the appellant argued that the COO was not issued retrospectively but rectified due to a minor discrepancy, and thus, they were eligible for the exemption benefit.

2. Dismissal of Appeal on the Ground of Limitation:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had initially dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation, citing a delay of 27 days beyond the normal limitation period. However, the appellant highlighted the order of the Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020, which extended the period of limitation due to the Covid-19 situation. The Tribunal found that the dismissal based on limitation was erroneous and admitted the appeal for hearing on merits.

3. Interpretation of Rule 15(8) of Duty Free Tariff Preference Scheme:
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 15(8) of the Duty Free Tariff Preference Scheme for the Least Developed Countries Rules, 2008, which governs the issuance of COOs. It was observed that the revised COO submitted by the appellant was considered to be issued retrospectively, leading to the denial of the exemption benefit. However, the Tribunal concluded that the COO was rectified for a minor discrepancy and did not fall under the retrospective issuance criteria, as per Rule 15(8).

4. Application of Rule 18 regarding Minor Discrepancies:
The appellant's counsel argued that the rejection of the benefit based on the COO discrepancy should be reconsidered under Rule 18 of the said Rules. Rule 18 allows for minor discrepancies in the COO, provided they correspond to the products under importation. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the rejection was unwarranted as it was a minor discrepancy and the rectified COO was in order. Consequently, the appellant was held entitled to the benefit of exemption/concessional tariff under Notification No. 096/2008-Cus.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and granted consequential benefits to the appellant, emphasizing the importance of correctly interpreting the rules governing the issuance and rectification of Certificates of Origin for importation.

← Previous Next →