TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Challenge to public notice upheld: Clause 3(ii) valid administrative requirement for explaining identical FOB values under 2009 Rules</h1> <h3>M/s. Idori India Pvt Ltd & Anr Versus The Chief Commissioner of Customs Jawaharlal Nehru Customs & Ors.</h3> HC dismissed the challenge to the public notice dated 24 June 2024, upholding Clause 3(ii) as a valid administrative requirement that an importer must ... Challenge to the public notice dated 24 June 2024 including Clause 3 (ii) of the said notice - entitlement to clear the goods for home consumption after availing the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 Customs dated 01.06.2011 in regard to the goods imported by the Petitioners - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that Clause 3 (ii) only requires the importer to furnish or include an explanation for the identical FOB values mentioned in the two documents, viz. FTA-COO and the third country invoice at the time of submission of the self-assessed bill of entry. This clause will apply only in case of identical FOB values and not in all other cases. Nothing in this clause militates against the 2009 Rules as was sought to be suggested. This explanation is called for only to enable the proper officer to assess and verify compliance with the 2009 Rules or other relevant rules applicable to the transaction in question. The requirement in Clause 3 (ii) does not infringe upon any rights of the Petitioner. Suppose the Petitioner fulfils the requirements of the 2009 Rules or other rules as may be applicable. In that case, there is no reason why the Petitioner will be denied the benefits under the preferential trade agreements - there are no illegality in Clause 3 (ii) of the public notice. No provision has been shown which would as an interdict or render ultra vires the explanations sought in terms of Clause 3 (ii) of the public notice dated 24 June 2024. The requirement in this clause does not affect the Petitioner's statutory entitlement. By challenging the public notice, the Petitioner cannot seek a direction to assess the bills of entries at Exhibits ‘F’, ‘G’ and ‘H’ by directly granting the Petitioner the benefit of the Customs notification dated 1 June 2011. The explanation that the Petitioner furnishes will indeed be considered - by filing a Petition to challenge the public notice itself, no omnibus relief as applied can be granted. Each transaction must be considered on its own merits given the facts disclosed, and the compliance reported. This petition cannot be entertained - the issue of the Petitioner's entitlement or otherwise to the benefits of the preferential trade agreements will have to be considered in accordance with the law, the relevant notifications, and the rules - petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge to public notice dated 24 June 2024, including Clause 3 (ii) | Entitlement to clear goods for home consumption after availing benefits of Notification No. 46/2011 Customs | Assessment of Bill of Entries for home consumption and cancellation of bank guarantees and bondsAnalysis:The Petitioner challenged a public notice dated 24 June 2024, specifically focusing on Clause 3 (ii) of the notice. The Petitioner sought relief through a Writ of Mandamus, declaring entitlement to clear goods for home consumption under Notification No. 46/2011 Customs. The Petitioner argued that the notice conflicted with the Customs Tariff Rules of Origin under the Preferential Trade Agreement, forcing them to clear goods provisionally with bank guarantees and bonds due to Clause 3 (ii) requirements. The Respondents contended that Clause 3 (ii) only required an explanation for identical FOB values in documents to ensure compliance with rules. They emphasized that the notice was lawful and necessary for proper assessment.The Court examined the contentions in light of the 2009 Rules. The public notice in question dealt with guidelines under CAROTAR 2020 for country-of-origin certificates issued under Free Trade Agreements. It empowered officers to seek information from importers claiming preferential duty rates if origin criteria were doubted. Clause 3 detailed the procedure for verifying FTA-COO and explained the rationale behind the revised process. Clause 3 (ii) specifically addressed identical FOB values in documents, requiring an explanation from importers during self-assessment.The Court determined that Clause 3 (ii) did not infringe upon the Petitioner's rights. It clarified that the requirement for an explanation was to assist officers in verifying compliance with rules, especially in cases of identical FOB values. The Court highlighted that fulfilling rule requirements would ensure benefits under trade agreements. Challenging the notice did not warrant direct assessment of specific entries or benefits under a different notification. Each transaction should be evaluated based on its compliance with relevant rules and notifications.Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Petition but clarified that the Petitioner's entitlement to trade agreement benefits would be considered following the law and relevant rules. The explanation submitted by the Petitioner under Clause 3 (ii) would be evaluated based on applicable regulations. The Court emphasized that statutory remedies were available for any denial of benefits, and each case would be assessed individually based on disclosed facts and compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
