Rules of Origin compliance supported customs exemption for imported tin ingots, with the duty demand found unsustainable.

Eligibility for preferential customs exemption on imported tin ingots depended on compliance with the Rules of Origin under Notification No. 189/2009, including the regional value content and change in tariff sub-heading requirements, supported by a Certificate of Origin issued by the designated authority. The record did not establish that the Certificate of Origin was fake or that the regional value content fell below the prescribed threshold, and the evidence did not reliably dislodge the claimed Malaysian origin with partial manufacture there. On those facts, the conditions for preferential treatment were not shown to have been breached, and the importer was found entitled to exemption under Notification No. 46/2011; the differential customs duty demand was therefore wrongly raised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011 in respect of the imported tin ingots, and whether the denial of exemption on the ground of violation of the Rules of Origin under Notification No. 189/2009 dated 31.12.2009 was justified.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the applicability of the origin criteria under Rule 3 and Rule 5 of the Rules of Origin, which require that non-wholly produced goods satisfy the prescribed regional value content and change in tariff sub-heading conditions, and that the claim be supported by a Certificate of Origin issued by the designated authority under Rule 13. The materials on record did not establish that the Certificate of Origin was fake or that the regional value content was below the prescribed threshold. The goods were shown to have been imported from Malaysia with partial manufacture there, and the record did not contain reliable calculation evidence to dislodge the claimed origin status. On the facts, the conditions for preferential treatment were not shown to have been breached.

Conclusion: The importer was held eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 46/2011, and the differential customs duty was held to have been wrongly demanded.

---