9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 152 - AT - CustomsBenefit of exemption N/N. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011 denied - country of origin - denial of Exemption Notification which is available on the basis of Country of Origin on the ground that there are two country of origin certificates issued and both were signed by different Authorities therefore, the Country of Origin Certificate is under serious doubt - HELD THAT - The revenue without getting confirmation from the Indonesian government about their doubt of authenticity of the country of origin certificate concluded that the certificate of origin signed by Mr. Rumaiti is not genuine and consequently denied Exemption Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011 and consequential demand was confirmed. As per the documents submitted by the appellant it appears that there is no doubt on the authenticity of the country of origin certificate issued and signed by Mr. Rumaiti. However, to clear any doubt it is the burden on the department to get the verification from the Indonesian Government regarding authenticity of Certificate of origin which has not been discharged by the department. Therefore, in the interest of justice, one chance is given to the department to get the verification from concerned authorities about the genuineness of the certificate of origin issued by Mr.Rumaiti, thereafter to pass a fresh order. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to Adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order preferably within a period of 3 Months from the date of this order.
Issues:
1. Denial of exemption notification based on the authenticity of the Country of Origin certificate. 2. Admissibility of the benefit claimed in the bill of entry under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. 3. Proper verification process for Country of Origin certificates under AIFTA Rules and Customs regulations. Analysis: 1. The appellant purchased coal on High Seas Basis and claimed Nil rate of BCD under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus based on a Country of Origin certificate. The Customs department issued a Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation, duty demand, interest, and penalty due to discrepancies in the certificate. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and penalty, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which was rejected. The appellant then appealed to the Tribunal, challenging the denial of the exemption notification. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that a corrected Country of Origin certificate was issued due to an error in the initial certificate, signed by different authorities from Indonesia. The counsel emphasized that the AIFTA Rules 2009 provide procedures for doubts regarding certificate authenticity, which were not followed by the Customs department. The appellant highlighted that the Indonesian certificate should be binding, and the Customs department should have verified the authenticity properly. The counsel cited relevant case laws and legislative amendments to support the appellant's position. 3. The Revenue contended that two certificates signed by different authorities were produced, leading to doubts about the Country of Origin. The Operational Certification Procedure (OPC) requires certificates to be in proper format without alterations. The Revenue argued that the benefit claimed in the bill of entry was inadmissible due to misdeclaration of the country of origin. 4. The Tribunal found that the Revenue denied the exemption notification based on doubts about the Country of Origin certificate, which had two different signatories. However, after reviewing the submissions and documents, the Tribunal concluded that the certificate issued the second time, signed by Mr. Rumaiti, appeared genuine. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to confirm the certificate's authenticity with the Indonesian government, shifting the burden of verification to the department. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision within three months. This detailed analysis highlights the legal arguments, procedural lapses, and the Tribunal's decision to address the issues raised in the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD.
|
