2007 (12) TMI 146 - AT - Customs

Tribunal affirms denial of ISFTA benefits, reduces penalties, and upholds customs duty valuation

The Tribunal upheld the denial of ISFTA benefits, imposition of Anti-dumping Duty, and rejection of the Certificate of Origin. Penalties on individuals ... Not. 19/2000 grant exemption to Energy saving lamps(CFL) in terms of Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) – goods actually originated from China & only packed in Sri Lanka – intention of evading Anti-dumping Duty - certificate of origin (as per ISFTA) issued by the Sri Lankan authorities based on wrong information - conditions of Rule 7(b) & 7(d) of the Origin Rules, 2000 notified vide Customs Not. 19/2000 are not fulfilled – exemption not available – rather Anti dumping duty payable Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for exemption under the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA).2. Liability for Anti-dumping Duty.3. Validity of the Certificate of Origin.4. Imposition of penalties on individuals involved.5. Valuation for Additional Duty of Customs.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Exemption under ISFTA:The appellant, M/s. Surya Light, imported Energy Saving Lamps (CFL) and claimed exemption under ISFTA. Initially, the Bill of Entry was filed with an invoice from Hong Kong indicating China as the origin. This invoice was later replaced with a fabricated one showing Sri Lanka as the origin to claim ISFTA benefits and avoid Anti-dumping Duty. The investigation revealed that the goods were only packed and labeled in Sri Lanka, not manufactured there. The Adjudicating Authority denied the ISFTA exemption, citing non-fulfillment of Rule 7(b) and 7(d) of the Origin Rules, 2000, as the goods did not undergo substantial transformation in Sri Lanka.2. Liability for Anti-dumping Duty:The Commissioner held that the goods were of Chinese origin and thus liable for Anti-dumping Duty under Notification No. 138/2002-Cus dated 10-12-2002. The Tribunal confirmed this finding, stating that the goods were not eligible for ISFTA benefits and were subject to Anti-dumping Duty.3. Validity of the Certificate of Origin:The appellant produced a Certificate of Origin from Sri Lankan authorities. However, the investigation and evidence showed that the certificate was based on incorrect information. The goods were merely packed and labeled in Sri Lanka, which did not meet the criteria for origin under ISFTA. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to reject the Certificate of Origin.4. Imposition of Penalties on Individuals Involved:The Commissioner imposed penalties on Shri Umesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Surya Light, and Shri Jagadish P. Bajaj, Representative of M/s. Surya Lights. Umesh Kumar was found to have masterminded the operation to evade Anti-dumping Duty. Jagadish Bajaj was involved in fabricating documents to misdeclare the country of origin. The Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on Umesh Kumar to Rs. 10,00,000/- and on Jagadish Bajaj to Rs. 50,000/-.5. Valuation for Additional Duty of Customs:The Commissioner accepted the declared value for Customs Duty but fixed the Retail Sale Price (RSP) at Rs. 200/- per piece for Additional Duty of Customs. The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's valuation and the demand of Rs. 1,18,03,735/- under various provisions of the Customs Act and Customs Tariff Act, along with interest.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, confirming the denial of ISFTA benefits, imposition of Anti-dumping Duty, and rejection of the Certificate of Origin. The penalties on the individuals involved were reduced, and the valuation for Additional Duty of Customs was affirmed. The appeal was disposed of with these modifications.