9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s desired under the Notification 99/2011-Customs dated 09.11.2011, as is evident from the details incorporated by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the table provided at paragraph 1 of the impugned order dated 23.01.2023. Thus, there are no reason to deny the benefit of the SAFTA Notification to the appellant. Since the appellant has fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the N/N. 99/2011-Customs dated 09.11.2011, it is held that the appellant are eligible for the benefit of the said notification. The impugned orders denying the benefit of the SAFTA N/N. 99/2011-Customs dated 09.11.2011 to the impugned goods imported by the appellant vide the six bills of entry are not sustainable - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. - HON BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri R.S. Roychoudhury and Shri C.L. Dangi, both Advocates, for the Appellant Shri Sourabh Chakravorty, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER ORDER: [ PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN ] Customs Appeal No. 75762 of 2021 has been filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/CCP/AKR/645/2021 dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2. Thereafter, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata as per the provisions of Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962. 2.2.1. In respect of Customs Appeal No. 75762 of 2021, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has, vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/CCP/AKR/645/2021 dated 12.08.2021, rejected the appeal on the ground of time bar, as there was a delay of 6 days beyond the statutory time limit of 60 days in filing the appeal. 2.2.2. The remaining five appeals viz. Customs Appeal Nos. 76361, 76362, 76363, 76364 and 76365 of 2024 have been filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/CCP/KS/53-56/2023 dated 23.01.2023 wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeals on the ground that at the time of clearance of the goods, the importer had forgone the benefit of exemption under SAFTA and cleared the goods on payment of applicable duty under protest and held that when such benefit was forgone at initial stage, the said benefit could not be claimed by a subsequent act at a later stage. It was also alleged that the appellant-importer has failed to provide the origin related information as indicated in FORM 1 in terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject goods, i.e. Soya Acid Oil is doubtful. So, SAFTA certificate of origin bearing reference Nos. can only be accepted after proper verification. In the meantime, you will have to assess the subject bill of entry provisionally on execution of proper bond and bank guarantee. You can also clear item on full payment of customs duty. 3.1. The appellant submits that later, the proper officer has assessed the impugned Bills of entry by denying the benefit of the SAFTA notification, without giving an opportunity to them to submit the documents required under Notification No. 81/2020 dated 21.08.2020. Accordingly, the appellant submits that principles of natural justice have not been followed by the assessing officer while deciding the issue against them. 3.2. The appellant submits that Appendix I to the Notification No. 75/2006-Customs (NT) dated 30.06.2006 indicates that if origin criterion has been marked as A (Column 8 of Appendix I) then it is the certification that the imported goods under SAFTA was wholly produced in the exporter country. It is the submission of the appellant that in respect of all-subject bills of entry filed, the certificate submitted by them indicates that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 81/2020 dated 21.08.2020. Accordingly, he supported the impugned orders denying the benefit of the SAFTA Notification in question to the impugned goods imported by the appellant. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. We observe that the appellant had filed the six Bills of Entry for clearance of imported Soya Acid Oil at 'nil' rate of Customs Duty under SAFTA Notification No. 99/2011-Customs dated 09.11.2011. As per Rule 4 of Notification No. 81/2020 (NT) dated 21.08.2020, an importer who claims preferential rate of duty shall:- 4. (a) Possess information as indicated in Form I, to demonstrate the manner in which country of origin criteria, including the regional value content and product specific criteria, specified in the Rules of Origin, are satisfied and submit the same to the proper officer on request. (b) Keep all supporting documents related to Form I for at least five years from date of filing of Bill of Entry and submit the same to the proper officer on request. (c) exercise reasonable care to ensure the accuracy and truthfulness of the aforesaid information and documents. (Emphasis supplied) 7. In the present case, we observe that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) allowed the benefit of the SAFTA Notification by citing the Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/CCP/KS/65-68/2024 dated 25.01.2024 wherein the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata substantiated that the benefit of any exemption may be claimed subsequently, even if it is not availed initially. In the present case, the appellant had made the payment under protest and hence, they are legally within their right to contest this issue. 8.2. Thus, we observe that under similar facts and circumstances, the benefit of the SAFTA notification which had not been claimed initially, has been allowed to the appellant at a later stage on submission of the country of origin certificate. Further, in the present case we observe that the appellant has produced the country of origin certificate as desired under the Notification 99/2011-Customs dated 09.11.2011, as is evident from the details incorporated by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the table provided at paragraph 1 of the impugned order dated 23.01.2023. Thus, we do not find any reason to deny the benefit of the SAFTA Notification to the appellant. Since the appellant has fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the Notification 99/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
