Tribunal allows use of photostat copies for duty assessment

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, directing that photostat copies of the invoices should be accepted for assessing imported goods at the preferential rate of duty, as per Section 63 of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal found no reason to reject the photostat copies produced by the government department appellants, especially since the same Custom House had accepted such copies for previous instalments of the same goods. The order-in-appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector of Customs for further proceedings in line with the Tribunal's decision.

---

---

Issues:
Claim for refund based on preferential rate of duty for imported goods due to United Kingdom origin certificate not produced within the specified time limit.

Analysis:
The appeal in question pertains to the correctness of the appellant's claim for a refund based on the preferential rate of duty for imported goods, which were claimed to be of United Kingdom origin. The Assistant Collector of Customs initially rejected the claim on the grounds that the country of origin certificate was not produced within the stipulated six-month period from the payment of provisional duty. Subsequently, the Appellate Collector of Customs also did not accept the photostat copies of the invoice containing the country of origin certificate, leading to the rejection of the claim by the appellants. The main contention raised by the appellants was that they had submitted photostat copies of the invoices along with the claim for refund, which were not accepted by the authorities who insisted on the originals for signature. It was argued that photostat copies had been accepted for some previous instalments of the same goods by the Customs authorities. Additionally, the original United Kingdom origin certificate was obtained by the appellants after the expiry of the six-month time limit.

During the hearing, it was highlighted that under Section 63 of the Evidence Act, a photograph of an original document can be considered as secondary evidence of its contents if it is proven that the photographed item was the original. The Tribunal noted that unless there were specific circumstances casting doubt on the authenticity of the photostat copies, they should have been accepted for the purpose of the claim. Moreover, it was observed that the same Custom House had accepted photostat copies for assessing goods at a preferential rate of duty for other instalments of the same goods. Given that the appellants were a department of the Government of India, the Tribunal found no reason to reject the photostat copies produced by them as suspicious. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the photostat copies of the invoices should be accepted for assessing the imported goods at the preferential rate of duty, provided all other requirements were met. As a result, the order-in-appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector of Customs for further proceedings in accordance with the Tribunal's directions.

---