2017 (11) TMI 1256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the same at ICD, Concor, Jaipur. They have claimed exemption from customs duty under Notification No.26/2000-CUS dated 01/03/2000. The said notification allows exemption for goods originating from Sri Lanka in terms of Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin under the Free Trade Agreement between the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and Republic of India) Rules, 2000, under Notification 19/2000-CUS (NT) dated 01/03/2000. The appellants filed relevant certificates of origin issued of Designated Competent Authority of Government of Sri Lanka. The dispute in the present case is relating to the eligibility of the appellant for the exemption on these consignments. The Revenue held a view that the appellants did not fulfil the conditio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the exporter in Sri Lanka. There is nothing contrary as evidence to dispute the bonafideness of the certificate of origin. As such, he submitted that the Original Authority has wrongly concluded on the ineligibility of the exemption to the appellant. He prayed for setting aside the order. 4. The learned AR contested the appeals on the ground that verifications have been done by the Sri Lankan customs and reports are available on record. The Original Authority recorded that the value addition could not have been 35% or more on the ground that the value declared for assessment in Sri Lanka by the supplier of ingots is not correct. The comparison with the LME Metal price during the relevant time will indicate that the value has been gross....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... record. We note that none of these reports by Sri Lankan customs give any indication about the value addition not being fulfilled by the Sri Lankan supplier. To this extent, there is no factual support for the observation made in the impugned order. Further, we note that the valuation of Zinc Ingots as ascertained by the impugned order has no relevance to question the certificate issued by the Competent Authority of Sri Lankan Government. As such, we find the nonfulfilment of condition under Rule 7 (a) could not be invoked by the Original Authority, in the facts of this case. Further, it is also recorded by the Original Authority that the Director of the importing Indian company in the statements gave details which supported the allegation....