ISFTA duty concession restored; Rule 11 permits third-country invoicing despite customs denying Notification 26/2000 and 19/2000 benefits

CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that denial of concessional basic customs duty under N/N. 26/2000-Cus. read with N/N. 19/2000-Cus. (N.T.) was unsustainable. The Tribunal held that under Rule 11 of the ISFTA Rules, 2000, there is no legal requirement for the Certificate of Origin to specifically mention third-country invoicing, and such invoicing does not affect eligibility for ISFTA benefits. It was also undisputed that the goods were "wholly obtained" and met the origin criteria. Consequently, the ISFTA duty concession on the goods covered under List-5 was restored.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether denial of concessional basic customs duty under Notification No.26/2000-Cus. dated 01.03.2000 read with Notification No.19/2000-Cus. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2000 is legally sustainable where the Certificate of Origin (COO) issued by the designated authority does not contain a specific field indicating third-party/third-country invoicing and commercial invoice is issued by a third country entity.

2. Whether third-party/third-country invoicing affects the originating status of goods or the entitlement to preferential treatment under ISFTA when the COO confirms origin and the goods satisfy the origin criteria (including "wholly obtained" or relevant value/processing criteria).

3. Whether procedural safeguards for verification of COO (including CAROTAR / RKC principles and CAROTAR/Trade Agreement verification rules) were required to be invoked before denying preferential treatment, and whether failure to initiate verification renders denial unsustainable.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of denial of ISFTA concession for absence of a specific COO field for third-party invoicing

Legal framework: Notification No.26/2000-Cus. grants concessional duty subject to proof of origin in accordance with the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin under ISFTA) Rules, 2000 (Rules of 2000). Rule 11 prescribes certificate of origin in the annexed form. Rule 4 requires claim and production of evidence at importation.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on authority of a High Court decision (Aabis International) holding that ISFTA benefit may not be denied where the ISFTA/Rules are silent and requisite COO is produced; Mohinder Singh Gill (principle that orders must speak) and CAROTAR/28DA jurisprudence on procedure were cited by analogy.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the Rules of 2000 (including Rule 11 and the annexed COO form) do not require a separate column for third-party invoicing. The governing legal requirement is that a COO issued by the designated authority certifying origin shall support preferential treatment. The absence of an invoicing field in the COO does not invalidate the COO or disentitle the importer where the COO otherwise satisfies origin criteria and is issued by the competent authority.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the Rules of 2000 are silent on third-party invoicing, absence of a specific column for third-party invoicing in the COO is not a ground to deny ISFTA concession if COO is otherwise valid and issued by designated authority. Obiter - remarks on trading arrangements and commercial practices are explanatory.

Conclusion: Denial of concession solely because the COO lacks explicit third-party invoice details is not sustainable; the impugned denial on that ground is set aside.

Issue 2 - Effect of third-party/third-country invoicing on origin and entitlement to preferential treatment

Legal framework: Rules of 2000 define origin criteria (Rule 5-9), including "wholly produced or obtained" (Rule 6) and value/processing tests (Rule 7). CAROTAR/Verification Rules and international practice (Revised Kyoto Convention, Chapter 3 of Specific Annex K) govern documentary verification and cooperation between authorities. CBIC Circular No.53/2020 addresses third-party invoicing in certain contexts (DFTP/LDC) and acceptance where originating criteria are "wholly obtained". RBI Master Circular addresses third-party payments.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal cited CBIC Circular No.53/2020 and the High Court decision in Aabis International which upheld acceptance of COO notwithstanding procedural lacunae, subject to verification rights of the department. The Tribunal treated CBIC Circular as supportive where the origin criterion is not affected by invoice origin.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that third-party invoicing is a commercial/trading arrangement distinct from the substantive origin of goods. Origin is determined by Rules of 2000 criteria and certified by the designated authority. Where origin is "wholly obtained" or where value of goods does not impact originating status, third-party invoicing does not negate the COO; verification mechanisms remain available to the revenue if authenticity or accuracy is in doubt. The key is that COO confirms originating status irrespective of invoice origin; absence of invoice origin details in COO is not determinative.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - third-party/third-country invoicing per se does not affect originating status or entitlement to preferential tariff treatment under ISFTA when the COO, issued by designated authority, confirms conformity with origin rules; Revenue's remedy is verification, not automatic denial. Obiter - references to ASEAN-India FTA and other FTAs recognizing third-party invoicing and to RBI payment conditions are supportive contextual observations.

Conclusion: Third-party invoicing alone cannot defeat an otherwise valid COO and entitlement to ISFTA concessions; the appropriate response to doubts is to initiate verification under applicable verification regimes rather than outright denial.

Issue 3 - Requirement and use of verification procedures prior to denial of preferential treatment

Legal framework: CAROTAR/Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules and international practice (RKC Annex K) set out verification requests, timelines and co-operation between competent authorities. Sectional/administrative provisions (e.g., Section 28DA procedures referenced in related jurisprudence) govern suspension, security and powers to reject claims.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on Aabis International where procedural defects (failure to initiate verification, non-speaking orders, competence issues) led to quashing of denial; it also cited RKC/Specific Annex K and CAROTAR provisions as embodied in domestic rules for verification procedures.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found no evidence that the Revenue initiated any verification request to the exporting country competent authority despite available mechanisms and international/domestic procedures. The RKC/ CAROTAR principles require that in case of doubts about COO authenticity or accuracy, a verification request be made; mere silence in the Rules on third-party invoicing does not justify rejection without following verification. Further, procedural safeguards (authority competent to reject, reasons to be recorded) must be observed; omission renders denial legally unsustainable.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - denial of preferential treatment without invoking prescribed verification procedures or recording legally sufficient reasons is unsustainable. Obiter - detailed discussion of timelines and reciprocity principles in RKC/CAROTAR is explanatory but supports the ratio.

Conclusion: Revenue should have followed verification procedures before denying ISFTA concession; failure to do so renders the denial without authority of law.

Overall Conclusion and Disposition

The Tribunal concluded that (a) the COO issued by the designated authority satisfied ISFTA origin requirements; (b) absence of a specific column for third-party invoicing in the COO does not invalidate the certificate or disentitle the importer to Notification No.26/2000 concessions where origin is otherwise established; and (c) the authorities below erred in denying concession without resort to verification procedures. The impugned appellate order denying the concession was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.

---