Imported Areca Nuts: Court Upholds COO Validity, Criticizes Customs

The court found in favor of the petitioner, an importer of Areca Nuts, in a case concerning the validity of a Certificate of Origin (COO) for a consignment imported through Chennai port. The court upheld the COO's validity, rejected the requirement of 100% security for differential duty, and criticized the customs authorities for their inconsistent decisions. The impugned order was quashed, and a mandamus was issued for the immediate release of the goods. The court emphasized the importance of consistent decision-making by customs authorities and allowed the writ petition without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Certificate of Origin (COO)
2. Retrospective issuance of COO
3. Authority and procedure for verification under Section 28-DA of the Customs Act, 1962
4. Requirement of 100% security for differential duty
5. Consistency in customs authorities' decisions

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Certificate of Origin (COO):
The petitioner, an importer of Areca Nuts, filed a writ petition concerning a consignment imported through Chennai port. The petitioner sought customs duty exemption under Notification No.26 of 2000, supported by a COO issued by the Department of Commerce, Colombo, Sri Lanka. The Assessing Authority raised queries and assessed the consignment under the Faceless Assessment procedure. The COO's date was disputed, but a clarification from the issuing authority confirmed the correct date and the authorized signatory. Despite this, the respondents questioned the COO's authenticity.

2. Retrospective Issuance of COO:
The respondents objected to a stamp on the COO that read "issued retrospectively," arguing that the Indian Sri Lankan Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) does not allow retrospective issuance of COO. The petitioner countered that other trade agreements permit retrospective issuance, but the ISFTA's silence on this matter led to further verification demands by the respondents. The court noted that the respondents' explanations were not part of the impugned order and were raised only in the counter.

3. Authority and Procedure for Verification under Section 28-DA of the Customs Act, 1962:
The court examined Section 28-DA, which outlines the procedure for claiming preferential duty rates. The section mandates that the importer must provide sufficient information and exercise reasonable care regarding the COO. If the proper officer doubts the COO's authenticity, they can request further information or initiate verification. The court found that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, who rejected the exemption claim, was not competent to do so under Section 28-DA(4). The rejection should have been by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner with recorded reasons.

4. Requirement of 100% Security for Differential Duty:
The respondents argued that the petitioner must provide 100% security for the differential duty to initiate verification. The court rejected this argument, stating that Section 28-DA(5) requires security only for the release of goods, not for initiating verification. The court deemed Circular No. 42 of 2020, which demanded 100% security for verification initiation, as exceeding statutory authority and thus invalid.

5. Consistency in Customs Authorities' Decisions:
The court highlighted that the petitioner had successfully used the same documentation, including the COO, at other Indian ports, including Thoothukudi, without issues. The court criticized the respondents' inconsistent stance, emphasizing that authorities under a central enactment should adopt consistent views on similar transactions. The court found the respondents' objections to the COO and the clarification as hypertechnical and unsupported by the statutory scheme.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner had met the requirements for a valid COO and that the respondents' objections were unfounded. The court quashed the impugned order and issued a mandamus for the immediate release of the goods within one week. The court underscored the need for consistent decision-making by customs authorities across different ports. The writ petition was allowed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.

---