2022 (10) TMI 71 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Notification No. 99/2011-Cus denied - import of Colchicum (Saanjan) Grade 3 - imported goods of Afghanistan origin imported from Afghanistan to India transiting through Pakistan - chargeable to NIL rate of duty OR chargeable to 200% duty? - HELD THAT - The Bill of Lading is the document of title. It is issued by the Master of the Vessel or his agent, say, the Shipping Agent, acknowledging receipt of the goods. It indicates what has been received (say, container number so and so) and what it is said to contain, how it is sealed (seal number, etc.). If there are any remarks about the condition of the goods (say, leaking or damaged), it is called a dirty bill of lading‟ and otherwise, called a clean bill of lading‟. The responsibility of the shipping line is to deliver to the consignee the container (or other form of goods) in the form in which it has been received on production of the Bill of Lading. Since the Master of the Vessel cannot wait for the consignee importer, the goods, in the manner in which they have been received are handed over to the Custodian (say, Port Trust or CFS, ICD, etc.) which, in turn, hands over the goods to the importer on production of the Bill of Lading, clearance from the Customs (in the form of Bill of Entry) and a delivery order issued by the Shipping Line (confirming clearance of its dues). The Bill of Lading cannot mention Afghanistan as the Port of Loading because that is not where the goods were received by the Shipping Line. We do not find anything in the exemption notification requiring that the same transporter has to transport the goods from the place of export upto the final destination. Therefore, denial of the benefit of the exemption on this basis is not correct. The Principal Commissioner also doubted the documents which were submitted for the reason that the Invoice, Country of Origin Certificate and Transit Certificate were all issued on the same date 16.02.2022 and since these were to be issued by different authorities requiring inspections, he held that it would have been impossible to do so. We find that since the invoice was issued by the exporter itself and not by any authority it would not take much time to issue it. The Country of Origin Certificate was issued by the Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce and Industries cross referencing the invoice and also endorsing the invoice on the same day - there are no good reason as to why one department of the Government and the Chamber of Commerce and Industries and the exporter itself cannot issue documents on the same date. There is no basis for formation of such a suspicion by the Principal Commissioner on this ground. As far as the Bill of Lading is concerned, it is true that it does not indicate the place of receipt of the goods and only mentions the Port of Loading as Karachi. Ideally, the Shipping Line should have mentioned that it received the goods in Karachi port itself but any doubt as to which goods were shipped by the Shipping Line to India and for which the Bill of Lading was issued will be put to rest if the Goods Declaration GD-1 Form filed with the Pakistan Customs is perused as the Examination Report by the officers clearly links the goods which were transported by road in a truck upto Karachi Port with the goods which were stuffed in the Container and shipped to India. The impugned order cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the goods imported by the appellant were of Afghanistan origin and thus eligible for exemption under Notification No. 99/2011-Cus.
2. Whether the goods were exported from Pakistan and thus subject to 200% duty under Notification No. 05/2019-Cus.
3. Validity of the documents presented by the appellant to establish the origin and transit of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Origin of Goods and Eligibility for Exemption
The appellant claimed the goods were of Afghanistan origin and thus eligible for exemption under Notification No. 99/2011-Cus. The appellant provided various documents to support this claim, including an invoice, a Country of Origin certificate, a phytosanitary certificate, and a Transit Certificate, all issued by Afghan authorities. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt these documents, noting that the simultaneous issuance of these documents by different authorities was plausible. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were indeed of Afghanistan origin and thus eligible for the exemption.

Issue 2: Export from Pakistan and Applicability of 200% Duty
The Revenue argued that the goods were exported from Pakistan, as indicated by the Bill of Lading which mentioned Karachi as the Port of Loading. The Tribunal clarified that the Bill of Lading only indicated where the goods were received by the shipping line and not their origin. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption notification did not require the same transporter to transport the goods from the place of export to the final destination. Therefore, the mention of Karachi as the Port of Loading did not negate the Afghan origin of the goods.

Issue 3: Validity of Documents
The Principal Commissioner had raised suspicions about the validity of the documents, particularly because they were issued on the same date and lacked certain endorsements. The Tribunal found these suspicions unfounded. It noted that the invoice could be issued quickly by the exporter, and the other documents could be issued simultaneously by different authorities. The Tribunal also addressed the missing signatures on the Transport Note and Trip Duration Report, explaining that these documents were meant for transit within Pakistan and did not require signatures at the final destination.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the appellant had provided a continuous chain of documents establishing that the goods were of Afghanistan origin and had merely transited through Pakistan. The Tribunal ruled that the goods were eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 99/2011-Cus and were not subject to the 200% duty under Notification No. 05/2019-Cus. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.