9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Appeal No. 10971 of 2021- DB HON'BLE MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) , MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) , MR. RAJU Shri J C Patel , Shri Anil Gidwani , Ms. Meetika Baghal Advocates for the Appellant Shri Satyapal Singh Vikal , Assistant Commissioner ( AR ) , Shir P Ganesan , Superintendent ( AR ) Shri Anoop Kumar Mudvel , Superintendent ( AR ) , Shri Rajesh K Agarwal, Superintendent ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR These appeals are filed against the following respective Orders passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Since issues involved in these appeals are common, hence taken up together for disposal. Appeal No. Name of Appellant OIA /OIO C/10296/2021 Kiran Kotak & Co. MUM-CUSTM-000-APP-167 to 168-20-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Government of Republic of Indian and Malaysia) Rules, 2011. As per the aforesaid rules, in case of goods not wholly obtained or produced goods from Malaysia, the qualifying value content of the goods should not be less than 35% of the FOB value. Verification of qualifying value content was taken up for investigation of DRI, New Delhi and it was noticed that the goods were diverted from Cocoa beams of Ghana Origin and the regional value addition would be 3-7% against the minimum qualifying value addition of 35% of the FOB value. Based on the investigation conducted by the DRI, the show cause notices were issued to the Appellants proposing therein to deny the benefit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (NT) dated 31.12.2009 and therefore the appellant had duly complied with the requirement of the Notification No. 46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011. 2.2 He further submits that in the present matter no verification had been requested and carried out by Indian Customs under Clauses 16 and 17 of "Operational Certification Procedures" in Annexure -III to Notification 189/2009-Cus (NT) in respect of the Certificate of Origin pertaining to the Appellant's imports. Therefore, the validity of the said certification cannot be questioned by Indian Customs and the benefit of exemption cannot be denied to the Appellants on the basis that the said certificate were not valid. 3. Shri Satyapal Singh Vikal, Assistant Commissioner (AR), Shir P Ganesan ,Shri An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng material have undergone at least a change in tariff sub-heading level i.e. at six digit of the Harmonized System, provided that the final process of the manufacture is performed with the territory of the exporting party. 4.1 We find that in the present disputed matter appellant has claimed the goods to be originating in Malaysia as provided under Rule 5 of the AIFTA Rule i.e. not wholly obtained or produced. In respect of all the subject consignments, the appellants produced certificate of origin in Form A-1 issued by the Ministry of Internal Trade and Industry (MITI) of Government of Malaysia showing the Regional Value content of the subject goods as more than 35% +CTSH . However case of the department is that intelligence gathered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
