Type Approval Certificate from UK Meets Policy Requirements under DGFT Policy Circular. Appeal Allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Type Approval Certificate/COP from the U.K. met the policy requirements under the DGFT Policy Circular. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant as there was no violation, setting aside the impugned order.

---

---

Issues: Interpretation of DGFT Policy Circular regarding Type Approval Certificate/COP for imported vehicles.

Analysis:
1. Facts and Background: The appellant imported a vehicle from the U.K., which was examined by customs authorities. The issue arose when it was found that the appellant did not submit a Type Approval Certificate/COP from an internationally accredited agency from the country of origin, Japan. The adjudicating authority initially ruled in favor of the appellant, but the Revenue filed an appeal challenging this decision.

2. Adjudication Proceedings: The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, stating that the certificate submitted by the appellant was not from the country of origin, Japan, and therefore, the interpretation of the DGFT Policy Circular was incorrect. The appellant argued that the Vehicle Certification Agency in the U.K. was listed as an international accredited agency in the DGFT Circular, and since the car was shipped from the U.K., there was no violation of the policy.

3. Arguments and Counter-arguments: The appellant's counsel referred to the DGFT Policy Circular, highlighting that for cars manufactured in the European Union, a certificate from the country of origin was not necessary. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that since the car was not from the EU, the certificate should have come from Japan. The Ld. SDR supported the Ld. Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the need for the certificate from the country of origin.

4. Interpretation of DGFT Policy Circular: The Tribunal analyzed the DGFT Policy Circular No. 5/2004-2009, which clarified the requirements for Type Approval Certificates. The circular stated that for the EU, a certificate from the country of origin was not mandatory, as long as it came from a signatory country to the 1958 Agreement under WP29. The Tribunal found the Revenue's insistence on the certificate from Japan erroneous, as the certificate from the U.K.-based agency was valid under the policy.

5. Conclusion and Decision: After considering both parties' submissions and the circular provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the order of the adjudicating authority was correct. The Tribunal held that the Type Approval Certificate/COP from the U.K. met the policy requirements, and there was no violation. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

---