2023 (9) TMI 938 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Appeal Over Delayed COO Certificate Due to Pandemic

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the appeal filed by the respondent, considering the circumstances surrounding the ... Preferential rate of duty - Eligibility of FTA duty benefit - denial of benefit on the ground that country-of-origin certificate was not produced by the respondent at the time of filing the Bill of Entry - prayer in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter and the appeal being allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- Though it is seen that Commissioner (Appeals) has made various observations with regard to eligibility of FTA benefit, the prayer of the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals) was only to remand the matter for reassessment. It is an admitted fact that respondent could not produce the COO certificate at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. It is explained by the respondent that they could not obtain it from the foreign supplier due to Covid-19 pandemic - a lenient view has to be taken and the delay in producing the certificate has to be condoned. The Commissioner (Appeals) has made some extraneous discussions with regard to eligibility of notification also, which may be the reason for the Review Cell in directing to file this appeal. The matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who is directed to consider the eligibility of the notification on the basis of the COO certificate produced by the respondent. The prayer in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) being to remand the matter and the appeal being allowed by Commissioner (Appeals), there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The original authority shall reconsider the eligibility of notification benefit after receiving the COO certificate produced by respondent - Appeal filed by department is dismissed. Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment include the eligibility of the respondent for preferential treatment of duty payment under the Korea-India Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, the requirement of filing a country-of-origin certificate along with the Bill of Entry, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on obtaining the certificate, and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the appeal filed by the respondent.Eligibility for FTA Duty Benefit: The Department contended that the respondent was not eligible for the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) duty benefit as they did not produce the country-of-origin certificate at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. However, the Tribunal considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the respondent's ability to obtain the certificate and decided to take a lenient view. The Tribunal ordered that the delay in producing the certificate should be condoned, and the matter should be remanded to the original authority for reassessment based on the COO certificate provided by the respondent.Remand for Reassessment: The Tribunal noted that the respondent had requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter to the Assessing Group to enable them to furnish the country-of-origin certificate and claim the benefit. The Tribunal agreed with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the appeal, stating that it was a fit case for reassessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the original authority should reconsider the eligibility of the notification benefit after receiving the COO certificate from the respondent. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed, and the cross objections filed by the respondent were disposed of accordingly.Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the appeal filed by the respondent, considering the circumstances surrounding the delayed production of the country-of-origin certificate due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reassessment based on the COO certificate and directed the original authority to reconsider the eligibility of the notification benefit. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed, and the cross objections filed by the respondent were disposed of accordingly.