2025 (11) TMI 1818 - AT - Customs

Tribunal quashes delayed customs demand, upholds N/N. 53/2011-Cus. benefit and Section 17(1) self-assessment finality for importer

M/s. United Sales Agency Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order demanding Rs. 9,40,035/- with interest and penalty for alleged short payment of ... Short payment of customs duty - denial of benefit of preferential rate of duty under N/N. 53/2011-Cus. dated 01.07.2011 - unauthenticated Certificate of Origin - HELD THAT:- It is found that the consignment in question was imported vide Bill of Entry No. 5297439 dated 21.02.2018, under Certificate of Origin No. KL-2018-AI-21-005075 dated 20.02.2018. In case the Department wanted to contest these earlier imports based on the directions contained in the letter dated 19.01.2023 issued on the basis of communications received from the FTA Cell, proper verification should have been undertaken in respect of the said Certificates of Origin, which has not been done in this case. Just on assumptions and presumptions, the authenticity of the Certificate of Origin cannot be doubted so as to deny the benefit of preferential rate of duty under N/N. 53/2011-Cus. dated 01.07.2011. There are force in the appellant’s argument that the assessments were completed by the appellant and the same were not challenged by the authorities to get the same re-assessed without providing the benefit of the said Notification in view of the allegation that the Certificate of Origin was unauthenticated. It is a fact on record that the Bill of Entry in question was self-assessed to duty under Section 17(1) of the Act, which had not been challenged by the Revenue. After nearly four years, the company was served with the Show Cause Notice dated 20.02.2023, alleging that the COO submitted was among those found non-authentic as per the verification undertaken by the FTA Cell of the C.B.I.C. with Issuing Authorities in Malaysia and Thailand. The confirmed demand of Rs.9,40,035/-, along with interest and penalty, is not legally sustainable. Hence, the impugned order stands set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the benefit of preferential rate of duty under the relevant exemption notification could be denied by treating the Certificate of Origin as 'unauthentic' solely on the basis of a general communication from investigative and FTA authorities, without specific verification of the particular certificate covering the impugned consignment. 1.2 Whether a demand of differential customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is legally sustainable where the Bill of Entry was self-assessed and had attained finality, without the Revenue having challenged or modified such self-assessment under the appropriate appellate or reassessment provisions. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Denial of preferential rate of duty on the basis of alleged non-authentic Certificate of Origin (a) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1 The Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the provisions for preferential duty benefit under Notification No. 53/2011-Cus. dated 01.07.2011, which requires a valid Certificate of Origin (COO) to claim concessional duty. (b) Interpretation and reasoning 2.2 The Tribunal noted that the impugned consignment was covered by a specific Certificate of Origin identified by number and date. The subsequent letter dated 19.01.2023 from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, based on communications from the FTA Cell and foreign authorities, referred generally to several COOs being reported as 'non-authentic' and included the name of the supplier in question. 2.3 The Tribunal held that, if the Department intended to contest past imports based on such general directions, it was necessary to undertake proper and specific verification in respect of the particular Certificate of Origin covering the consignment at issue. No such certificate-specific verification was shown to have been carried out. 2.4 The Tribunal held that the authenticity of the particular Certificate of Origin cannot be disbelieved or doubted merely on assumptions and presumptions drawn from a general communication, without direct verification of that specific certificate with the issuing authority. (c) Conclusions 2.5 The Tribunal concluded that the denial of preferential rate of duty under Notification No. 53/2011-Cus. on the ground that the Certificate of Origin was 'unauthenticated' was unsustainable, in the absence of concrete verification and evidence regarding the specific certificate covering the impugned Bill of Entry. Issue 2: Sustainability of demand under Section 28 where self-assessment has attained finality (a) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.6 The Tribunal considered the scheme of assessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, including self-assessment under Section 17(1), and the recovery provision under Section 28 for duties not levied or short-levied. 2.7 The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV, wherein it was held that an order of assessment or self-assessment, if not challenged, cannot be indirectly modified through collateral proceedings, and any person aggrieved must seek modification by resorting to appeal under Section 128 or other relevant provisions. 2.8 The Tribunal also relied on its own earlier decision applying ITC Ltd., holding that a demand of differential duty cannot be sustained without first challenging or reopening the original assessment of the Bills of Entry. (b) Interpretation and reasoning 2.9 It was recorded that the Bill of Entry for the impugned consignment had been self-assessed under Section 17(1) and was RMS facilitated; the assessment was not appealed or otherwise challenged by the Department and hence attained finality. 2.10 The Tribunal observed that, after almost four years, the Department issued a show cause notice under Section 28 alleging non-authenticity of the Certificate of Origin and demanding differential duty, interest and penalty, without first taking steps to modify or set aside the self-assessment through the appellate or reassessment mechanisms provided in the Act. 2.11 Applying the ratio of ITC Ltd., the Tribunal reasoned that once an assessment, including self-assessment, has become final, any attempt to recover differential duty presupposes that such assessment is first lawfully modified or set aside. Section 28 cannot be used as a mechanism to indirectly reopen a concluded assessment without such prior modification. 2.12 The Tribunal followed its earlier view that a demand of differential duty raised without challenging the original assessment of the Bill of Entry is not sustainable in law. (c) Conclusions 2.13 The Tribunal held that the confirmed demand of Rs. 9,40,035/-, along with interest and penalty, raised under Section 28 in respect of a self-assessed Bill of Entry that had attained finality, was not legally sustainable, as the underlying assessment had not been appealed, modified or set aside in accordance with the statutory scheme. 2.14 On this ground also, the impugned order demanding differential duty, interest and penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.