9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Between the Government of Member States of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India) Rules 2009. It is felt that denying substantial benefits only for technical errors would not do justice to the appellant. While the authenticity of COO is doubted by revenue on this score, nothing concrete has been mentioned in the impugned order to justify the doubt, except for the correction made and the date of the COO certificate being after the date of shipment. Doubt is not a substitute for proof. There is no other taint on the validity of the certificate. The procedure mentioned in the Rules to check any doubt regarding the COO certificate was not followed. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity observed that the country-of-origin certificate has not been submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement) between the Governments of member States of the ASEAN and India. Hence the lower authority held that the 5% basic customs duty is not in order and the benefit of Notification No. 153/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009 has not been claimed by the importer at the time of finalization and the country-of-origin certificate has not been submitted in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Notification as amended. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred appeals before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who vide the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (ASEAN and Republic of India Rules 2009 183/2009 (NT) which empower the customs authority of the importing country to reject without referring back to issuing authority. b. There is no erasure or superimposition. It was a blank space in the COO which was later stamped with issued retroactively c. The goods are wholly produced and are of Indonesian origin. These facts are not denied. d. There is no mismatch. It is third party country invoice and it is permissible under the ASEAN Rules, 2009. e. He referred to the following judgments in their favour; (i) TCP Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2023 (11) TMI 530 (ii) R.K. Digital Solutions Vs. UOI 2020 (2) TMI 1302 Telangana High Court 3.2 The respondent-revenue states the following:- a. Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approved and certified by an official of the Issuing Authority authorized to sign the certificate. Whereas there is no authentication of the correction / alteration and the appellants could not produce even the correspondences made in respect of the request made before the Issuing authority for amendment. In view of this, the non-acceptance of the certificates by the LAA is correct. Therefore, the impugned goods have become ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 153/2009-Cus dated 3.12.2009 (as amended by Notification No. 135/2010-Cus dated 31.12.2010) In view of the above discussions, the Orders in Original are upheld and the appeals are rejected. 5. The only issue raised in the impugned order is that there was an alteration / corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
