9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rate of 1% Adv. and excess duty paid by the appellant is to be refunded. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant can be rejected on the ground that, at the time of clearance of the goods, certificate as prescribed in format was not produced by the appellant? - Held that: - The invoices shows the country of origin as North Korea and the certificate produced at the time of clearance was not in prescribed format but as per the agreement, for claiming preferential tariff treatment, certificate of origin can be produced later-on but with the words ISSUED RETROSPECTIVELY in remarks column. The appellant has produced the said certificate and the same has not been disputed. The appellant has produced the certificate of origin in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant in terms of provisions of Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade agreement between Governments of the Republic of India and the Republic of Korea) Rules 2009. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority, on the ground that in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the amendment in the Bill of Entry is not permissible as the documents on which the refund claim has been filed was not available with the appellant at the time of clearance of the goods. The said order was challenged before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on fact finding. If the appellant has produced the certificate of country of origin then there is no dispute between the parties. The appellant is required to pay Basic Customs duty at the rate of 1% Adv. and excess duty paid by the appellant is to be refunded. In that circumstances, I hold that the preliminary objection raised by the ld. AR is not sustainable hence the same is rejected. 6. The next issue raised before me is whether the refund claim filed by the appellant can be rejected on the ground that, at the time of clearance of the goods, certificate as prescribed in format was not produced by the appellant. I find that certificate was not produced at the time of filing bill of entry and clearance of the goods. The invoices show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
