2025 (6) TMI 546 - AT - Customs

Mumbai CESTAT allows appeal on gold jewellery customs duty exemption under India-Thailand preferential tariff agreement due to improper origin determination

Keyur Shah, Marvel Products & Exim Pvt Ltd, Mahapooja Products Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai And Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Versus Marvel Gems & Jewellery Pvt Ltd

CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal concerning customs duty exemption on imported gold jewellery under India-Thailand preferential tariff agreement. The ... Entitlement to claim exemption from customs duty on imported gold jewellery under the preferential tariff concession agreement between India and Thailand, specifically under notification no. 85/2005-Cus - discharge of burden to prove - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has not rendered any findings on the formula determination, it has not been suggested that rule 15 of the said Rules had been invoked and the statements of co-noticee cannot, by the nature of ‘relevance’ institutionalised in Customs Act, 1962, be subjected to the test prescribed or not covered by exception in section 138B of Customs Act, 1962 owing to which the contents thereof are inadmissible in adjudication proceedings. In any case, the exemption being borne out of treaty negotiations, and subject to terms of negotiations set out in the enabling notifications, there can be no substitute for process so prescribed. As far as the seized jewellery is concerned, the presumption in section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, though available to insinuate origin, is rebuttable upon which onus shifts to the customs authorities to establish that the gold was smuggled. Failure to do so cannot shift the burden back in the absence of clear finding that the documents submitted are not genuine. That onus has not been discharged in the impugned order. Conclusion - The action taken on the imported goods is without validity for having ignored the prescriptions on ascertainment of country of origin as well as the authenticity of the certification. Appeal allowed. The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this matter include:1. Whether the appellant-importers were entitled to claim exemption from customs duty on imported gold jewellery under the preferential tariff concession agreement between India and Thailand, specifically under notification no. 85/2005-Cus and related Interim Rules for Determination of Origin for Preferential Tariff Concessions for Trade between India and Thailand, 2004.2. Whether the certificate of origin (CoO) issued by the competent authority in Thailand, certifying local value addition of 22%, was valid and sufficient to claim exemption, or whether the adjudicating authority was justified in discarding it based on alleged non-compliance with prescribed value addition criteria.3. Whether the adjudicating authority erred in ignoring the procedural safeguards and verification mechanisms prescribed under the treaty and Interim Rules, especially rules 4, 6, 15, 20, and 21, in rejecting the certificate of origin and imposing duty, interest, confiscation, and penalties.4. Whether the reliance on statements of co-noticees and seizure of gold jewellery without proper verification and adherence to statutory evidentiary standards under sections 111, 123, 124, 138B, and 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, was legally sustainable.5. The scope of sovereign authority of the exporting country (Thailand) in certifying origin and value addition, and the extent to which Indian customs officers can independently assess or substitute such determinations.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Entitlement to Preferential Tariff Concession and Validity of Certificate of OriginThe legal framework governing the preferential tariff concession is notification no. 85/2005-Cus read with notification no. 102/2004-Cus and the Interim Rules for Determination of Origin for Preferential Tariff Concessions between India and Thailand, 2004. These rules provide the criteria and procedural safeguards for ascertaining the origin of goods and the extent of local value addition necessary to qualify for exemption.Precedents cited by the appellants, including decisions in Romil Jewellery, Kiran Kotak & Company, So-Hum Trading Company, and Alfakrina Exports, emphasize the binding nature of the certificate of origin issued by the exporting country and the procedural requirements for verification.The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority rejected the certificate of origin on the ground that the value addition of 22% certified did not meet the prescribed criteria, relying instead on 'making charges' to determine value addition. However, the Interim Rules, specifically rule 6(d), prescribe a formula for value addition which was not applied by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal found no record indicating that the adjudicating authority had access to or considered the import value of raw materials into Thailand or the export value from Thailand, which are sovereign determinations beyond the jurisdiction of Indian customs officers.The Court emphasized that the adjudicating authority lacked the power under the Customs Act or the treaty to substitute its own assessment for the certificate issued by the competent authority of Thailand. The rejection of the certificate without following the prescribed process, including the verification procedures under rule 15, was held to be improper.Verification and Procedural Safeguards under the Interim RulesRule 15 of the Interim Rules allows the importing party to request a retroactive check if there is reasonable doubt about the authenticity or accuracy of the certificate of origin. The adjudicating authority must follow this procedure before rejecting the certificate or denying preferential treatment.The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority did not invoke rule 15 or follow the prescribed verification process. The reliance on statements of co-noticees without adherence to evidentiary standards under section 138B of the Customs Act rendered such evidence inadmissible. The Tribunal further distinguished the present case from precedents where goods were wholly produced in the exporting country, noting that this case pertained to value addition and deemed origin, which require strict compliance with treaty procedures.The Tribunal also referenced the decision in Noble Import Private Limited, highlighting that failure to furnish certain information by the importer does not justify immediate denial of exemption but triggers the prescribed verification process, including possible verification visits, with appropriate notifications to concerned parties.Burden of Proof and Presumptions Regarding Seized JewelleryRegarding the seizure of gold jewellery, the Tribunal considered section 123 of the Customs Act, which creates a rebuttable presumption about the origin of seized goods. The burden shifts to customs authorities to prove smuggling or wrongful import. The impugned order failed to discharge this burden or provide clear findings that the documents submitted were not genuine.Scope of Sovereign Authority and Limitations on Indian Customs OfficersThe Tribunal underscored that the determination of origin and value addition as per the treaty is a sovereign function of the exporting country and cannot be overridden by Indian customs officers. The treaty and enabling notifications form a comprehensive and self-contained framework that restricts the exercise of customs powers under the Customs Act in matters of preferential tariff concessions.The Tribunal rejected the reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court in Nakoda Unique Gold Pvt Ltd, noting factual and procedural differences, including the stage of proceedings and the nature of the dispute.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the adjudicating authority acted without jurisdiction and contrary to prescribed procedures by rejecting the certificate of origin without following the verification process, substituting its own assessment of value addition, and failing to discharge the burden of proof regarding seized jewellery.The impugned order imposing duty liability, interest, confiscation, and penalties was set aside, and the appeals allowed.Significant Holdings:'There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the adjudicating authority was privy to both 'value' at which the materials had been imported into Thailand or that assessed on exports from Thailand; those are sovereign functions of the administration of the exporting country which is not subordinate to officers of customs under Customs Act, 1962.''In the absence of any reference to 'making charge' in the Interim Rules or elsewhere, it is not open to officers of customs in India to venture upon some information made available in the 'certificate of origin (CoO)' for discard of the certificate without following procedure prescribed therein.''A process specifically enunciated in rule 15 of Interim Rules for Determination of Origin for Preferential Tariff Concessions for Trade between India and Thailand, 2004 has not been adhered to and there is no power vested in the adjudicating authority either by the said Rules or from Customs Act, 1962 to substitute for the treaty provisions.''Failure to furnish information by the importer would only enable the concerned authority to have a retroactive check conducted... and then take action... Prior to conducting a verification visit, the importing party shall deliver a written notification of its intention to conduct the verification visit...' (Noble Import Private Limited)'The presumption in section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, though available to insinuate origin, is rebuttable upon which onus shifts to the customs authorities to establish that the gold was smuggled. Failure to do so cannot shift the burden back in the absence of clear finding that the documents submitted are not genuine.''The treaty has been entered into by the Republic of India with Kingdom of Thailand and the wisdom of according preferential rate in accordance therewith is not subject to affirmation of that wisdom by agency entrusted with customs assessment and clearance under Customs Act, 1962.'