Limitation extension during Covid and minor certificate defects did not defeat customs exemption entitlement
CESTAT New Delhi held that the appeal could not be rejected as time-barred because the Supreme Court's Covid-19 limitation extension applied from 15.03.2020, so the delay was not fatal and the matter was maintainable on merits. It further held that a minor discrepancy in the certificate of origin did not defeat exemption or concessional tariff under Notification No. 096/2008-Cus, since the defect did not affect the identity of the goods and the rectified certificates could not be treated as invalid retrospective issuance where the governing rules permit minor discrepancies to be ignored. The impugned order was set aside and relief followed.
Issues: (i) Whether the appeal filed beyond the normal period of limitation could be entertained in view of the Supreme Court order extending limitation during the Covid-19 period. (ii) Whether the denial of exemption/concessional tariff under Notification No. 096/2008-Cus was justified on the ground that the certificate of origin was defective or issued retrospectively.
Issue (i): Whether the appeal filed beyond the normal period of limitation could be entertained in view of the Supreme Court order extending limitation during the Covid-19 period.
Analysis: The limitation period stood extended by the Supreme Court from 15.03.2020 in view of the Covid-19 situation. The dismissal of the appeal as time-barred overlooked the binding effect of that direction. The delay could not, therefore, be treated as fatal to the maintainability of the appeal.
Conclusion: The appeal could not be rejected on limitation and was rightly admitted for hearing on merits.
Issue (ii): Whether the denial of exemption/concessional tariff under Notification No. 096/2008-Cus was justified on the ground that the certificate of origin was defective or issued retrospectively.
Analysis: The initial certificate of origin contained a minor discrepancy in the invoice particulars, and the rectified certificates were later produced by the appellant. Such discrepancy did not affect the identity of the goods or the substantive entitlement to preferential treatment. Rule 18 protected minor discrepancies that did not invalidate the certificate of origin, and the rectified certificates were wrongly treated as retrospective issuance attracting Rule 15(8). The certificates were therefore to be accepted as valid for the import consignments in question.
Conclusion: The denial of exemption was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exemption/concessional tariff.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded in full with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A minor discrepancy in a certificate of origin that does not affect the imported goods does not invalidate the certificate, and a rectified certificate linked to the original one cannot be treated as a disqualifying retrospective certificate when the governing rules permit such minor discrepancies to be ignored.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
