9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no expression to the effect that there is reason to believe that the Country of Origin criteria stated in the Certificate of Origin has not been met or the claim of preferential rate of duty made by the importer, the petitioner, is invalid. Even there is no document to show that specific information has been sought from the verifying authority. It appears further to this Court, this can be at best termed as measure of due diligence to verify whether the goods meet the origin criteria as claimed and thus, the said verification shall fall within the ambit of verification on random basis covered by Rule 6(1)(c) of CAROTAR, 2020. This Court is persuaded to direct the Customs [the respondents No.2 and 3] to release ware-housed consignment of the petitioner as covered by the Bills of Entry No.959298 and INP/AGT-LC/2020-21 dated 17.12.2020 on obtaining an indemnity bond to the effect that on assessment of duty, after verification, if any of the petitioner is found liable to pay more duty, he shall pay such duty within a period of thirty days from the day when the order of assessment will be communicated to the petitioner, else the customs will be at liberty to take appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that is not relevant for the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020. According to the review petitioner, it is for the intriguing way of placing their averments in respect of the Bill of Entry dated 29.09.2020, the fact relevant for the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020 got meshed. The review petitioner has emphatically stated that no verification has been initiated in respect of the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020. No record has been produced by the respondents No.2 and 3 in that regard. Even though, the following observation in the said judgment dated 26.04.2021 has been made in the context of the Bill of Entry dated 29.09.2020 : it has been found by the customs that he has made some inaccurate statement in respect of minimum value addition in Bangladesh. That apart, some components contributing to the price could not be figured out. Thus, the verification on deficiency is prima facie justified. 4. The review petitioner has stated in the review petition that no particular deficiency in the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020 finds mention in the records nor any verification under Rule 6 of the CAROTAR, 2020 was initiated. For that error, This Court, according to the review petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prima facie come under Rule 6(1)(C) of the CAROTAR, 2020. Thus, Rule 5(b) of CBEC s circular No.38/2016-customs dated 22.08.2016 will apply in the present case. After thorough verification, if some defects is located, such verification will take a different character. In the present case, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has furnished the subsequent statement which conforms to the nature of container. 16. Hence, the respondents are directed to release the imported goods under the Bill of Entry No.659390/INP/AGT-LCS/2020- 21 dated 26.12.2020 on obtaining an indemnity bond to be submitted by the petitioner binding himself to deposit the duty meaning the difference between the duty that would be assessed by the competent authority on verification and the preferential duty which has been paid by the petitioner. It is made absolutely clear that in the event of failure to deposit the assessed duty on completion of verification within seven days from the date of such assessment, such duty shall carry interest @ 15 p.a. from 26.09.2020 till the said duty is deposited. The imported goods, as ware-housed be released within twenty four hours from the time when the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Annexure-D and copy of the letter No. C.No.IMP/MISC/4/2020-LCS/AGTL-COMMI-SHILL/822, dated 13-10-2020 is enclosed as Annexure-E. (ii) The observation of the Hon ble Court is equally applicable to the present Bill of Entry No. 659298/IMP/AGT-LC/2020-21, dated 17-12-2020. The Affidavit-in-Opposition submitted by the Respondents is completely true and the Respondents have never tried to mislead the Hon ble Court as claimed by the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner that no verification has been initiated is factually wrong. A verification has been initiated under Rule 6(1)(b) of the CAROTAR, 2020 which was duly intimated to the Petitioner vide letter F.No. IMP/MISC/4/2020-LCS/AGTL- COMMI-SHILL, dated 20-12-2020 and the same was duly received by Shri Sankar Roy, Authorized signatory of the Petitioner. (iii) Matter of fact. However, the mistake occurred on part of the Hon ble Court which appears to be a mere typographical error. (iv) It may be mentioned here that the verification initiated in this case is a fresh verification and has nothing to do with that initiated for the Bill of Entry dated 29-09-2020 . 7. It may appear from the above reproduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the country of origin criterion stated in the certificate of origin was not met as per Rule 6(1)(B) of CAROTAR, 2020. Hence this is not a random verification under Rule 6(1)(c) as is being claimed by the petitioner . [Emphasis added] 9. For understanding the purpose of those averments of the respondents No.2 and 3, this Court is persuaded to extract the whole text of the communication dated 13.10.2020 [Annexure-E to the objection] which is the part of verification relating to the Bill of Entry dated 29.09.2020: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ICP) LAND CUSTOMS STATION, AGARTALA-799001 (TRIPURA) PHONE : 0381-232 9037::: e-mail : [email protected] C.No.IMP/MISC/4/2020-LCS-AGTL-COMM-SHILL/822 Dated : 13.10.2020 To The Commissioner of Customs Office of the Commissioner of Customs(P),NER 110, Customs House, M.G. Road, Shillong-793001 Sir, Sub : M/s Delwara Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. submitted the declaration under Rule 5(1) of CAROTAR, 2020 in Form-I-Reg. M/s Delwara Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. submitted B/E no.659629 dated 29.10.2020 for import the Galvanized Steel Sheets i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss, vii) Salary allow Bonus. As per certificate of origin (SAFTA) the C F (Cost and freight) charge may not be considered local value adding. It appears that material loss and Printing Ink may not be considered in qualifying operation. Thus, after deducting the C F charge, material loss and print ink percentage of local value content may be drop below 40%. In view of the above, if approved, (a) the Certificate of origin (SAFTA) may be verified in terms Rule 6 of notification no.81/2020 cus. (NT) dated 21.08.2020 or (b) the higher authority may be decided as per Rule 5(5) of he said notification. Yours faithfully illegible (P K Joardar) Asst. Commissioner Enclosed : as above 10. Those respondents have referred another letter dated 20.12.2020 [Annexure-D to the objection] claiming that the information relating to verification under Rule 6(1)(B) of the CAROTAR, 2020 was given to the petitioner and the said letter was received by one Sankar Ray who has been stated to be the authorized signatory of the petitioner. For purpose of better reference, the said communication dated 20.12.2020 which was Annexure-B to the reply filed by the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that except a typographical mistake which appeared in para-11 where this Court had observed that the petitioner may take release of the imported goods covered by Bill of Entry No.659, 629/IMP/AGT-LCS/2020- 2021 dated 29.09.2020 without prejudice to his claim. But he has to furnish security (bank guarantee or cash) for such release. There is nothing to be reviewed. That was a pure oversight inasmuch as in para-1 of the judgment dated 26.04.2021 the Bill of Entry has been accurately referred to. It has been stated in the said para as follows : The petitioner had imported Galvanized Steel Sheets in coil weighing 14.890 matric tons from Bangladesh by the Bill of Entry No.659298/INP/AGT-LC/2020-21 dated 17.12.2020 through the Agartala Land Customs Station. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has submitted that in the reply filed in the writ petition, nothing has been stated to mislead this Court. 12. In response, Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that by filing the objection, the respondents have introduced new materials, preceded by averments, relating to the Bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CAROTAR, 2020 where it has been provided that if there is reason to believe that the Country of Origin criterion stated in the Certificate of Origin has not been met or the clam of preferential rate of duty made by the importer is invalid or in the case when the importer fails to provide the requisite information sought under Rule 5 of the CAROTAR, 2020 by the prescribed due date or the information provided by the importer is found to be insufficient, the proper officer shall seek specific information from the verification [verifying] authority as may be necessary to determine the Origin of Goods. 14. The respondents No.1 and 2 have quite emphatically stated that they had informed the petitioner of verification under Rule 6(1)(B) of CAROTAR, 2020. If the decision of the apex Court as referred above, is read with provisions of Rules 6(1)(b) of CAROTAR any prudent person would suppose that in the notice either seeking information or giving reason for verification, the proper officer shall observe how the information given under Rule 5 of CAROTAR, 2020 is not sufficient information and what is the reason to believe that the Country of Origin criterion stated in the Certificate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents have admitted that the bank guarantee can only be asked for, when the verification is initiated under Rule 1(a) and Rule 6(b) of CAROTAR, 2020 after provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act. They have asserted that the petitioner in the case of the Bill of Entry dated 29.09.2020 has exercised the option for provisional assessment with bond and bank guarantee, but in the case of the Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2020 the petitioner has approached this Court. In this regard, the petitioner has submitted that he was compelled by the circumstances as his manufacturing unit was ideal for quite a long time. Thus, in the case in hand the petitioner, in response to the letter dated 20.12.2020 did not exercise the option for securing customs clearance of the goods as stated before by provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act till the issue is finalized. 17. While reading the facts of the Bill of Entry dated 29.09.2020, this Court has committed error by juxtaposition of facts which ought not to have done but the way the averments have been made, the error could creep in. Even in the objection, filed in this petition, those respondents have made e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led Bills of Entry No.659629 dt.29.09.2020 for imported of galvanized steel sheet claiming preferential duty under Notification No.75/2006-Cus(N.T.)dated 30.06.2006, as amended. During the course of clearance, there were reasons to believe that the Rules of Origin have not been met and accordingly, further information and supporting documents were sought under Rule 5(1) of CAROTAR,2020. The importers have submitted supporting documents and on scrutiny of the documents, it found that there are some components of manufacture costs/expenses which cannot be determined/attributed to the goods under import from the documents submitted by the importer. As such, it is felt that further verification is required for Country of Origin Certificate No.EPB(C) 25937 dated 28.09.2020 issued by Bangladesh under SAFTA in terms of Rule 6(1)(b) of CAROTAR, 2020 with respect to the information on the factors taken into consideration for arriving at the declared DVA. The information as pre the prescribed Annex along with eligible copies of the Certificate of Origin, Commercial Invoice, Bill of Lading, Form-I and Cost Break-up are forwarded herewith for taking further necessary action, please. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught under Rule 6(1)(b) of the CAROTAR, 2020 as there is no expression to the effect that there is reason to believe that the Country of Origin criteria stated in the Certificate of Origin has not been met or the claim of preferential rate of duty made by the importer, the petitioner, is invalid. Even there is no document to show that specific information has been sought from the verifying authority. It appears further to this Court, this can be at best termed as measure of due diligence to verify whether the goods meet the origin criteria as claimed and thus, the said verification shall fall within the ambit of verification on random basis covered by Rule 6(1)(c) of CAROTAR, 2020. 21. Having observed thus and on review of the judgment dated 26.04.2021, this Court is persuaded to direct the Customs [the respondents No.2 and 3] to release ware-housed consignment of the petitioner as covered by the Bills of Entry No.959298 and INP/AGT-LC/2020-21 dated 17.12.2020 on obtaining an indemnity bond to the effect that on assessment of duty, after verification, if any of the petitioner is found liable to pay more duty, he shall pay such duty within a period of thirty days from the day whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
