9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 321/76 does not require the COO to be issued by any designated authority, in our view the two certificates of origin indicating the COO as Burma cannot be discarded. - Bill of Lading itself says that freight is prepaid. The L/C which would have been definite proof could not be furnished by the appellant after a gap of almost 20 years. In any case Revenue has not submitted any evidence to show that freight and insurance were paid separately. Revenue s case is based on technicalities on account of so called discrepancies some of which we have clarified in the para above. Revenue s case is that the COO issued from Singapore does not indicate the invoice number. Departure date i.e. 28.3.1984 indicated in the COO issued at Singapore tallie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri R.G. Sheth, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri D.K. Sinha, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) ORDER Per : P.S. Pruthi This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal in which the Commissioner upheld the decision of the lower authority to enhance the assessable value and deny the benefit of Notification No. 321/76-Cus dated 2.8.1976. 2. The appellant imported 203.261 MTs of Crude Glycerin vide Bill of Entry dt. 11.04.1984. The value declared was as per invoice No. 10/334 dt. 28.3.1984 issued by M/s. Transicom (Burma). The appellant claimed the benefit of preferential rate of duty under Notification No. 321/76 which was allowed. Later, the internal audit d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued by M/s. Pharmaceutical Industries Corporation declaring the country of origin as Burma. The goods were transshipped through Singapore and a Certificate dt. 3.4.1984 issued by the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce certifying the goods to be of Burmese Origin was also submitted. In the letter certificate the exporter is shown as M/s. Transicom, Singapore who issued the invoice to the appellant. The audit seems to have raised the dispute that the certificate of origin was not pasted on the reverse of the Bill of Entry. The photocopy of the reverse of the Bill of Entry though not very readable, seems to indicate that the photocopy was pasted on the back side. Without going into this dispute we find that certificates of origin have been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by any designated authority, in our view the two certificates of origin indicating the COO as Burma cannot be discarded. They must be the accepted and we do so. 5.2. The next issue is to whether the invoice was on CIF basis or not. We notice that the Bill of Lading itself says that freight is prepaid. The L/C which would have been definite proof could not be furnished by the appellant after a gap of almost 20 years. In any case Revenue has not submitted any evidence to show that freight and insurance were paid separately. Revenues case is based on technicalities on account of so called discrepancies some of which we have clarified in the para above. Revenues case is that the COO issued from Singapore does not indicate the invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
