Customs rules of origin verification requires reasoned belief for adverse treatment; otherwise goods may be released on indemnity bond.

An apparent misdescription of the bill of entry in the earlier order was treated as a typographical error on the face of the record, so review was maintainable and the reference was corrected. On customs verification of a certificate of origin, the Court held that Rule 6(1)(b) of the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 applies only where there is a reasoned basis to believe the origin criterion has failed or the importer has supplied insufficient information; absent such material, the exercise falls under Rule 6(1)(c) as a random due-diligence verification. The warehoused goods were therefore directed to be released on an indemnity bond, without insisting on a bank guarantee.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier order contained an apparent error warranting review and correction of the bill of entry reference; (ii) whether the customs verification concerning the certificate of origin fell under Rule 6(1)(b) or Rule 6(1)(c) of the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020, and whether the warehoused goods could be directed to be released on an indemnity bond without insisting on bank guarantee.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier order contained an apparent error warranting review and correction of the bill of entry reference.

Analysis: The earlier order had referred to an unrelated bill of entry while dealing with the facts connected to the subsequent import. The record showed that the discussion and the operative direction had been mixed with materials relating to a different consignment, creating an obvious factual misdescription. Such a mistake was held to be a typographical and apparent error on the face of the record, justifying exercise of review jurisdiction to correct the mistaken reference.

Conclusion: The review was maintainable and the mistaken bill of entry reference was liable to be corrected.

Issue (ii): Whether the customs verification concerning the certificate of origin fell under Rule 6(1)(b) or Rule 6(1)(c) of the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020, and whether the warehoused goods could be directed to be released on an indemnity bond without insisting on bank guarantee.

Analysis: Rule 6(1)(b) applies where there is reason to believe that the origin criterion in the certificate of origin has not been met or the preferential claim is invalid, or where the importer has failed to furnish requisite information or furnished insufficient information. The materials produced did not show any such specific reasoned formation of belief for the impugned consignment, nor any proper request for specific verification information. The communications relied upon were found to be mixed with facts relating to another bill of entry and did not establish a valid Rule 6(1)(b) verification. On the materials, the exercise was treated as a random verification undertaken as due diligence under Rule 6(1)(c), for which insistence on bank guarantee was not justified.

Conclusion: The verification was held to fall under Rule 6(1)(c), and the goods were directed to be released on an indemnity bond.

Final Conclusion: The review succeeded, the earlier order was corrected, and the customs authorities were directed to release the warehoused consignment on the terms specified by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs verification under the rules of origin regime cannot be treated as one under the adverse-verification clause unless the record discloses a reasoned basis to believe that the origin criterion has failed or the importer's information is insufficient; absent such material, the verification remains a random due-diligence exercise and release of goods cannot be conditioned on bank guarantee merely on that basis.

---