CESTAT quashes confiscation and penalties for dry dates importer with valid UAE origin certificates

CESTAT Allahabad set aside confiscation order and penalties in a dry dates import case. The tribunal found that goods were correctly declared as UAE origin based on valid certificates of origin, phytosanitary certificates, and invoices. Customs failed to verify authenticity of origin certificates or prove misdeclaration. FSSAI compliance was established through proper NOC issuance. The court held that importers declaring origin based on supplier documents without mala fide intent cannot be penalized for misdeclaration. Retracted statements without proper rebuttal cannot establish offenses. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were quashed as no intentional false declaration was proven. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Country of Origin of Imported Goods
2. Compliance with FSSAI Regulations
3. Validity of Expert Opinions and Statements
4. Imposition of Penalties

Summary:

1. Country of Origin of Imported Goods:
The main issue was whether the dry dates imported by the Appellant were of UAE origin or Pakistan origin. The Appellant provided documents such as the invoice, bill of lading, and a Certificate of Origin from Ajman Chamber of Commerce, UAE, all indicating UAE as the country of origin. The Department, however, relied on an opinion from ARDPL and an Export Declaration obtained from the shipping line, which indicated Pakistan as the country of origin. The Tribunal noted that no verification request was made by the Customs authorities to the concerned authorities in UAE to verify the genuineness of the Certificate of Origin. The Tribunal held that the goods were of UAE origin, emphasizing that mere suspicion is not enough to discard the documents provided by the Appellant.

2. Compliance with FSSAI Regulations:
The Department alleged non-compliance with FSSAI Regulations, 2011, as the slips tagged with the bags of dry dates were not securely affixed. However, the Tribunal noted that the consignment was inspected by the FSSAI Authorized Officer, who issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) confirming compliance with the FSSAI Act and Regulations. The Tribunal held that the proper agency, i.e., FSSAI, was fully satisfied with the compliance, and therefore, the allegation of non-compliance was baseless.

3. Validity of Expert Opinions and Statements:
The Department relied on an opinion from ARDPL, which was based on visual inspection and not on any scientific analysis. The Tribunal found this opinion to be vague and lacking evidentiary value. The Tribunal also noted that the Export Declaration obtained from the shipping line was full of errors and could not be considered reliable evidence. Statements from individuals like Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal and Shri Chandan Chaudhary were also found to be based on hearsay and not supported by any cogent evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that retracted statements cannot be used to prove any offense unless corroborated by other independent and reliable evidence.

4. Imposition of Penalties:
The penalties imposed u/s 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, on the Appellant and its Director, Shri Yogesh Gupta, were found to be unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of any mala fide intention or manipulation by the Appellant to mis-declare the country of origin. The declaration in the bill of entry was made based on the documents provided by the overseas supplier. The Tribunal held that no penalty could be imposed when the goods were not liable to confiscation and there was no evidence of false declaration.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed all six appeals with consequential relief, if any, as per law. The goods were held to be of UAE origin, and the allegations of non-compliance with FSSAI Regulations were found to be baseless. The penalties imposed were also quashed.

---