2024 (2) TMI 512 - AT - Customs

BCD exemption denied for apple imports from Afghanistan under SAFTA due to improper Certificate of Origin and transit documentation

Asra Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs, Vijayawada (Vice-Versa)

Asra Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs, Vijayawada (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Country of Origin Certificate (COO) authenticity and exemption eligibility under Notification No. 99/2011-Cus.2. Compliance with SAFTA Rules and Procedures.3. Allegations of fraud, forgery, and misdeclaration.4. Valuation of imported goods and differential duty demand.5. Imposition of penalties under various sections of the Customs Act.Summary of Judgment:1. Country of Origin Certificate (COO) authenticity and exemption eligibility:The Assessee imported apples claiming exemption from basic customs duty under SAFTA. Upon investigation, it was found that the COO was fabricated and not issued by the Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI). The Tribunal upheld that the Assessee is not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 99/2011-Cus as the COO was not genuine.2. Compliance with SAFTA Rules and Procedures:The Tribunal noted that the goods were not under customs control in the country of transit, and the required through bill of lading/Airway bill was not produced. Therefore, the Assessee failed to comply with Rule 12(b)(iv) of the SAFTA Rules and Article 18 of SAFTA Procedures.3. Allegations of fraud, forgery, and misdeclaration:The Tribunal found no evidence of fraud or forgery against the Assessee. The evidence, including Phytosanitary Certificates and shipping documents, supported the Assessee's claim that the apples originated from Afghanistan. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, which pertain to fraud, suppression, and misstatement, were not applicable.4. Valuation of imported goods and differential duty demand:The Tribunal held that the enhancement of value was unjustified as no differential duty was proposed on account of revaluation in the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The declared transaction value was rejected on surmises, violating Section 14 of the Customs Act and Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules. The Tribunal set aside the reassessment of the 15 bills of entry that were already finally assessed and confirmed that the Assessee is liable to duty as per the declared value only for the five provisionally assessed bills of entry.5. Imposition of penalties:The Tribunal set aside all penalties imposed on the Assessee, including those under Sections 112, 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act, as no case of fraud or misdeclaration was made out against the Assessee.Conclusion:The Assessee's appeal was allowed in part, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal pronounced the judgment in the open court on 08.02.2024.