2015 (11) TMI 1226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../76-Cus dated 2.8.1976. 2. The appellant imported 203.261 MTs of Crude Glycerin vide Bill of Entry dt. 11.04.1984. The value declared was as per invoice No. 10/334 dt. 28.3.1984 issued by M/s. Transicom (Burma). The appellant claimed the benefit of preferential rate of duty under Notification No. 321/76 which was allowed. Later, the internal audit department raised two objections: First the invoice submitted at the time of clearance was on FOB basis as nothing was mentioned regarding terms of contract being on CIF basis. Secondly, notification No. 321/76 envisaged exemption to goods of Burmese origin but the country of origin certificate (COO) was not pasted on the Bill of Entry. In view of these objections a show cause notice was issued....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. The audit seems to have raised the dispute that the certificate of origin was not pasted on the reverse of the Bill of Entry. The photocopy of the reverse of the Bill of Entry though not very readable, seems to indicate that the photocopy was pasted on the back side. Without going into this dispute we find that certificates of origin have been submitted by the manufacturer in Burma as well as the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce, who certified the origin as Burma, the goods having transited through Singapore. The adjudicating authority has pointed out the discrepancy in the name of the vessel appearing in the two certificates of origin. The certificate issued by PIC shown the name of vessel as MV HTONEYWA whereas the name of the vess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r a gap of almost 20 years. In any case Revenue has not submitted any evidence to show that freight and insurance were paid separately. Revenues case is based on technicalities on account of so called discrepancies some of which we have clarified in the para above. Revenues case is that the COO issued from Singapore does not indicate the invoice number. We note that it indicates the name of the vessel, the number of drums, the weight, the L/C number? all these tally with the particulars in the Bill of Lading. It should not have been difficult for Revenue to co-relate such documents. Further we find that the departure date i.e. 28.3.1984 indicated in the COO issued at Singapore tallies with the date of invoice issued by M/s. Transicom. The....