SAFTA origin certificates and statutory timelines control customs exemption disputes; ad hoc valuation and penalties failed here.

Customs authorities must follow the prescribed statutory method for valuing non-originating material under SAFTA rules and cannot replace it with an ad hoc recalculation to deny exemption; a valid Certificate of Origin remains effective unless cancelled or revoked by the competent issuing authority, and the record showed the non-originating content stayed within the permissible threshold. Demand proceedings were also held unsustainable for non-compliance with the mandatory adjudication timeline under the Customs Act. Penalties under Section 114AA and Section 112(a)(ii) could not be sustained because intentional falsity was not established and the underlying demand and confiscation basis had failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand proceedings were barred by limitation under the Customs Act. (ii) Whether the Customs authorities could disregard the Certificates of Origin and recalculate the value of non-originating material on an ad hoc basis to deny SAFTA exemption. (iii) Whether penalties under Section 114AA and Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the demand proceedings were barred by limitation under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The proceedings arose from a show cause notice issued under the extended-demand provisions of the Customs Act. The adjudication was completed beyond the one-year period prescribed for determination of duty under the relevant statutory scheme. The statutory timeline had to be adhered to strictly, and the delay rendered the proceedings unsustainable.

Conclusion: The proceedings were barred by limitation and were not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Customs authorities could disregard the Certificates of Origin and recalculate the value of non-originating material on an ad hoc basis to deny SAFTA exemption.

Analysis: The exemption was claimed under the SAFTA-based notification and the governing rules prescribed a specific method for valuing non-originating material. The Department's approach of adding the trading-house margin to the exporter's declared value was not the method contemplated by the rules. The Certificates of Origin had not been cancelled or revoked by the issuing authority, and there was no basis for treating them as ineffective merely because the Customs authorities preferred a different valuation exercise. The record also showed that the non-originating content remained within the permissible threshold.

Conclusion: The Certificates of Origin could not be disregarded, and the ad hoc recalculation of value was impermissible.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties under Section 114AA and Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 114AA requires knowing or intentional use of a false or incorrect declaration or document in the transaction of business under the Customs Act. The record did not establish such mens rea on the part of the noticees, and the foundation for joint and several penalty was absent. Penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) also could not survive once the underlying confiscation basis and demand failed.

Conclusion: The penalties were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessees succeeded, the penalties were set aside, and the Revenue's challenges were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing origin rules prescribe a specific method for valuation of non-originating material, Customs authorities cannot substitute an ad hoc method, and a valid Certificate of Origin cannot be ignored unless revoked by the competent issuing authority; further, statutory time limits for adjudication must be strictly complied with and penalties requiring intentional falsity cannot be sustained absent proof of mens rea.

---