2026 (1) TMI 1239 - AT - Customs

Denial of preferential treatment under SAFTA reversed where valid country-of-origin certificate unrebutted; exemption under Notification No.99/2011 granted.

Denial of preferential treatment under a regional trade agreement was contested where imports were accompanied by a country of origin certificate issued ... Denial of preferential treatment under SAFTA - authenticity and verification of Country of Origin Certificate - classification of crude soyabean oil imported - benefit of Notification No. 99/2011 - Benefit of exemption - Presumption of genuineness of certificates - HELD THAT:- We find that in this case it is an admitted fact that the appellant has imported the goods in question which were accompanied by a valid country of origin certificate issued by the Export Promotion Bureau, Dhaka, Bangladesh issued under “SAFTA” . Admittedly in this case the Country of Origin certificate has not been rejected by the authorities below and it is not said that same is fake or not genuine. No conclusive report has been obtained by the Revenue from the authorities who have issued certificate of country of origin to the appellant. In that circumstances, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kanpur Edibles Private Ltd. [2024 (5) TMI 576 - CESTAT KOLKATA] the benefit of the exemption Notification No 99/2011 dated 09.11.2011 cannot be denied to the appellant. In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. Issues: Whether denial of preferential rate of duty under Notification No. 99/2011 dated 09.11.2011 in respect of goods imported from Bangladesh is sustainable where the import is accompanied by a Country of Origin Certificate issued by the Export Promotion Bureau, Dhaka and the issuing authority has not withdrawn or declared the COO to be fake.Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the COO produced by the appellant, issued under SAFTA by the Export Promotion Bureau, Dhaka, having on its face the requisite entry (letter D and percentage indicating non-originating material) and supported by a cost-sheet showing Domestic Value Addition above the applicable threshold, can be disregarded in absence of any conclusive report from or cancellation by the issuing authority. The Tribunal applied the principle that a certificate of origin and verification report cannot be treated as doubtful merely on the basis that a response from the issuing authority is pending; where the issuing authority has not withdrawn or declared the COO fake and no conclusive adverse report has been obtained by revenue, the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in Kanpur Edibles (as cited) and considered the import classification and DVA particulars, finding no allegation that the COO itself was not genuine.Conclusion: The denial of preferential treatment under Notification No. 99/2011 is unsustainable; the impugned order confirming demand is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.