TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011. As the appellant had imported the subject goods from Indonesia and claimed concessional rate of duty i.e. BCD @ 5% as per the said Notification, Certificate of Origin was filed which showed that the goods were imported under ASEAN-India Free Trade Area Preferential Tariff Agreement. Owing to certain discrepancies in the certificate of origin, the claim of benefit under the Notification was denied and the Bill of Entry was assessed by levying BCD @ 10%. The importer prayed for provisional assessment of the goods and got the goods cleared. 2. Subsequently, the importer received the rectified copy of the Certificate of Origin wherein the discrepancies pertaining to the import were duly verified by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on No.46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 as amended. (ii) The order as passed by the lower authority was mechanical in nature as no show cause notice or personal hearing was granted to the importer which is also violation to the principle of natural justice. (iii) They had submitted the 'demurrage certificate' for assessment as insisted upon by the department in order to clear the goods expeditiously and that the initial assessment was provisional. However, the lower authority vide letter dated 21.12.2018 has ordered to assess finally the bill of entry without giving benefit of the said notification. As such the order of the lower authority is pre-judicial and has been passed in fragrant violation of the principle of natural justice. 5. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent are classified under CTH 2523.10.10 which was also accepted by the lower authority. Accordingly, as per the sl.No.195 of notification No.46/2011- Cus dated 01.06.2011 amended through notification No.96/2017-Cus dated 29.12.2017, the said goods were eligible for concessional rate of duty i.e. BCD @ 5%. The only reasons for which the lower authority had denied the benefit of the notification were that - (a) the respondent could not produce the certificate of country of origin free from defects and (b) because the respondent had allegedly written a letter dated 12.03.2018 withdrawing their claim for the notification. The First Appellate authority has, in the impugned order, recorded cogent reasons for allowing the benefit of the notifica....