2025 (11) TMI 1647 - AT - Customs

SAPTA concession upheld for betel nut imports; excess quantity dutiable at merit rate, confiscation and penalties sustained

CESTAT Kolkata held that the SAPTA certificates covering the betel nut imports were genuine and correlated with the invoices, rejecting the Revenue's ... Re-assessment of Customs duty on imported Betel nuts - quantity shown in SAPTA Certificates vis-à-vis actual quantity found on physical weighment did not co-relate in accordance with the invoices submitted - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the goods were taken for weighment and seizure affected subsequently when the goods were still within customs jurisdiction. The intention of the appellant, as alleged by the department, to clear excess quantity without payment of duty, has no basis, as when the entire six SAPTA certificates are tabulated (refer table below). They approximately cover the entire quantity imported under cover of said six Bills of Entry. The department’s contention of stating the SAPTA Certificate submitted by the officers of Bangladesh authorities as false is without any sound reason and lacks a justiciable basis. The only basis for the Revenue’s charge is weighment results and some inculpatory statement of drivers and locals, who apparently were unaware of the matter. It is found that while the appellant have been able to documentarily establish the co-relation with the quantity under import, the inculpatory statements were also retracted. The Revenue thereafter has not been able to provide any other corroborative evidence in support of its contention - there are no merit in the department’s claim of the SAPTA Certificate being fake and non-co-relatable as the particulars of the shipment tallies with its particulars contained in the SAPTA Certificates. The impugned shipment was covered under the SAPTA Certificates issued and therefore liable for assessment at concessional rate of duty as applicable - the lower authorities order for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty also upheld. The importer shall be liable to pay duty at merit rate along with interest on excess imports of approximately 11MT as noted during the course of import and not covered by the said SAPTA certificates. The authority is directed to re-assess the goods - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the consignments of betel nuts imported were validly covered by SAPTA Certificates so as to qualify for concessional rate of duty under the relevant exemption notification. 1.2 Whether the discrepancies between declared quantities and quantities ascertained on physical weighment constituted intentional mis-declaration justifying assessment at merit rate, confiscation of the entire consignments and imposition of penalties. 1.3 Whether the SAPTA Certificates and related export-origin documents issued by the Bangladesh authorities were fake or non-co-relatable to the consignments in question. 1.4 To what extent, if any, the alleged excess quantity was liable to assessment at merit rate with consequential duty and interest, and the permissible scope of confiscation and penalty. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Coverage under SAPTA Certificates and eligibility for concessional rate of duty Legal framework: 2.1 The Court considered the applicability of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 105/99-Cus dated 08.08.1999 in the context of imports made under the SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA), based on SAPTA Certificates issued by the Export Promotion Bureau, Bangladesh. Interpretation and reasoning: 2.2 The Court examined six SAPTA Certificates issued by the Export Promotion Bureau, Khulna, and correlated them with six sets of Bills of Entry, commercial invoices, truck challans, Bangladesh Bills of Export, bank payment documents and other supporting records. 2.3 On tabulation of all six SAPTA Certificates and corresponding import documents, the Court found that the quantities and particulars 'approximately cover the entire quantity imported' under the six consignments, with only a minor difference between the quantity imported and that ascertained. 2.4 It was further noted that the particulars on commercial invoices, SAPTA Certificates, truck challans, Bangladesh Bills of Export and bank certificates (including proforma invoice numbers and values) tallied with each other and with the name of the importing firm, establishing that the consignments were the same and that the SAPTA Certificates related to these shipments. 2.5 The Court rejected the departmental contention that SAPTA Certificates were false or non-co-relatable solely on the basis of weighment differences, observing that when all six SAPTA Certificates are considered together, they substantially match the total consignment imported. Conclusions: 2.6 The consignments in question were held to be covered by valid SAPTA Certificates. 2.7 The imports were therefore held entitled to assessment at the concessional rate of duty available under the SAPTA-linked exemption notification, except to the limited extent of the small quantity not covered by such certificates. Issue 2: Alleged mis-declaration of quantity, assessment at merit rate, confiscation and penalty Legal framework: 2.8 The Court proceeded on the basis of the statutory scheme under the Customs Act governing assessment, mis-declaration, confiscation and penalty, though specific charging provisions were not reproduced in the order. 2.9 The definition of 'importer' under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act was noted in the context of arguments regarding the person on whom liability could be fastened, with reference to the later insertion of the term 'beneficial owner' (w.e.f. 31.03.2017). Interpretation and reasoning: 2.10 The Court recorded that initially only three Bills of Entry were filed covering 331.02 MT (gross)/327.025 MT (net), leading the department to allege excess import of about 214.71 MT based on physical weighment of 545.73 MT (gross)/541.736 MT (net). 2.11 The appellant's explanation was that six consignments were imported, and through inadvertent error in filing Import General Manifest and Bills of Entry, only three sets of documents were initially presented, with the remaining three Bills of Entry and attendant documents being produced subsequently. 2.12 On examining the documentary trail, the Court found that: (a) When quantities relating to Bills of Entry at serial nos. 1 & 4, 2 & 5, and 3 & 6 are combined, the totals are 'almost matching' the quantities ascertained by the department on physical weighment. (b) The commercial invoices, SAPTA Certificates, truck challans, Bangladesh Bills of Export and bank payment certificates cross-referenced each other (invoice numbers, proforma invoice numbers, quantities, number of bags, values and truck numbers) and together accounted for about 203 MT earlier treated as 'excess'. (c) These documents were contemporaneous, bore the importing firm's name and could not reasonably be treated as having been created later to cover up any excess imports. 2.13 The Court held that the department's case rested essentially on weight differences and inculpatory statements of drivers and local persons. Such statements had been retracted and were not supported by any independent or corroborative evidence that the importer intended to clear excess quantity without payment of duty. 2.14 The Court found no basis to attribute deliberate mis-declaration of the entire consignment, particularly since the goods were still under customs control at the time of weighment and seizure, and the closely matching figures suggested bona fide documentation and not an attempt to conceal quantity. 2.15 It was observed that, at best, any mis-declaration or short-reporting of quantity could only relate to the limited excess over what was supported and covered by the SAPTA Certificates and documents, and not to the entirety of 541.735 MT. 2.16 With reference to the concept of 'importer' under Section 2(26), the Court proceeded on the basis that liability under the Customs Act, for the relevant period, attached to the importer in whose name the consignments and documents stood, and not by reference to the subsequently introduced concept of 'beneficial owner'. Conclusions: 2.17 The charge of intentional mis-declaration of the entire consignment failed; there was no adequate evidence to sustain confiscation of the whole quantity or the imposition of penalties on that footing. 2.18 Confiscation of the entire consignment and related penalties, as ordered by the adjudicating authority, were set aside. Issue 3: Quantum of excess quantity and liability to duty, interest, confiscation and penalty Interpretation and reasoning: 2.19 After correlating all six consignments and SAPTA Certificates, the Court found that only a small excess quantity of approximately 11 MT, as noted during the course of import, remained not covered by the SAPTA Certificates. 2.20 As the goods imported were not prohibited goods, and the bulk of the quantity was fully supported by origin and import documents and entitled to concessional customs treatment, the Court held that any adverse consequence should be limited strictly to the uncovered excess quantity. Conclusions: 2.21 The importer was held liable to pay customs duty at the merit rate, along with applicable interest, only on the excess quantity of approximately 11 MT not covered by SAPTA Certificates. 2.22 No confiscation of the entire consignments or general penalties were sustainable; reassessment was directed in line with these findings and concessional assessment was to be extended to the covered quantities.