TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent No.3. Section 17 of the Customs Act provides the procedure for assessment of duty. The proper officer may verify the entries made under Section 46 or Section 50 of the Customs Act and also the self-assessment of the duty for the goods. For that purpose, the proper officer examine or test any imported goods provided that selection of cases for verification shall primarily be on the basis of risk evaluation. The proper officer may require the importer to produce any document or information and on such requisition, the importer shall produce such document or information. If it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise, the self assessment as done was not done correctly, the proper officer may without any prejudice to any other action which may be taken under the said Act, reassess the duty leviable on such goods. The importer may confirm his acceptance of reassessment in writing. The proper officer shall pass the speaking order for reassessment within fifteen days from the date of reassessment of the Bill of Entry. 2. The respondents have admittedly initiated a verification regarding the Certificate of Origin produced by the petitioner for availi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09.2020 under Section 156 read with Section 28(d)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 [Annexure-4]. Under the CAROTAR 2020 mere production of Certificate of Origin as was treated sufficient under the Rules of 2006 was not adequate. It is required that importer should possess information in support of the Certificate of Origin under Rule 4 of the CAROTAR, 2020. The assessing officer authorized to call for additional information under Rule 5 of the CAROTAR, 2020. Rule 6 of the CAROTAR, 2020 provides that exemption of concession of customs duty under SAFTA can be suspended or denied at clearance state directing the security deposit from the importer in the following situations : "(i) Rule 6(1)(a) : mismatch of signatures or seal when compared with specimens of seals and signatures in the Certificate of Origin. (ii) Rule 6(1)(b) : there is reason to believe derived, where the importer fails to provide the requisite information sought for under rule 5. (iii) Rule 6(4)(c) : the proper officer may, on the request of the importer, provisionally assess and clear the goods, subject to importer furnishing a security amount." [Emphasis added] 5. The petitioner has asserted that he has met....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Verification request- (4) Where verification in terms of clause (a) or (b) of sub- section (1) is initiated, during the course of customs clearance of imported goods,..... (c) the proper officer may, on request of the importer, provisionally assess and clear the goods, subject to importer furnishing a security amount equal to the difference between the duty provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Act and the preferential duty claimed." 7. The petitioner has contended that such request of the respondent No.3 is unwarranted, unjust and prejudicial to the petitioner. Exercise of such option would imply that the petitioner has admitted that he has failed to furnish the requisite information with regard to the Certificate of Origin and consequently requiring him to furnish the bank guarantee for whole of the duty for which exemption is eligible. For that reason, the petitioner has not made any request for provisional assessment under Rule 6(4)(c) of the CAROTAR 2020 nor is it required to, inasmuch as the petitioner has submitted all the relevant documents/information. Moreover he possess all the relevant information. Hence, the petitioner is not required to furnish the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de in the country of origin. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to Turant clearance in terms of the circular No.40-2020-Customs dated 04.09.2020 [Annexure-12]. 12. The respondent No.2 by filing the reply has, however, categorically stated that the Assistant Commissioner CGST and service tax has been made the party-respondent No.2 unnecessarily. True it is that the party respondent No.2 as added is not even a proper party. The necessary party is the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division. But since the superior Officers having jurisdiction have been made party, this objection should not have any effect so far the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned. However, the respondent No.3 has filed a comprehensive reply and raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition for existence of alternative remedy for release of the goods imported to, under Bill of Entry dated 26.09.2020. As provisional assessment of the duty of the goods is provided under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1956 read with Rule 5 and 6(4)(c) of CAROTAR, 2020. According to the said respondent, the disputed facts cannot be examined under Article 22....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r officer may on the request of the importer provisionally assess and clear the goods subject to that the importer furnished a security amounting equal to the difference between the duty provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act and the preferential duty claimed. To that effect, the respondent No.3 had issued letters to the importer [the petitioner] but he did not avail that provision for clearance of the goods under Bill of Entry dated 26.09.2020. In para-14 of the reply, the respondent No.3 has stated as follows : "On scrutiny of the documents provided by the Importer under Rule 5(1) of CAROTAR 2020 in Form-1 some doubts were raised by the Proper Officer, i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Agartala Land Customs Station and the same was communicated to M/s Jagannath Trading (IEC 204022410) vide letter dated 12.10.2020. The above said importer was requested on 30.10.2020 and 08.12.2020 because goods are perishable in nature self life is there to get Customs clearance of the imported goods by provisional assessment under section 18 of Customs Act 1962 to prevent any kind of financial losses/constraints. Further, for verification of Certificate of Origin the nodal office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts in the issue vide letter dated 14.10.2020. 3. In the cost break up dated 14.10.2020 they shown the presentence of profit 21.01%. 4. The composition which consider value adding : a) Percentage of local value content: 37.25% and components which constitute as : i) Packages & packing material, ii) Labour charge iii) Electricity iv) coal rice husk/Furnace oil v) indirect chemical vi) spares vii) Salary & wages, viii) over head cost & profit. b) Cost of packing material may be deducted because it is non originating components vide their declared in table of part B of the Form-1 and the goods imported from India vide letter dated 14.10.2020 attach sheets. 4. In the cost break up dated 14.10.2020 they shown the total costing S 1111.37 [less deprecation S16] and non-origin material is 697.42. it appears the DVA may be [(1095.37 - 697.42]x 100/1095.37]=36.33% and value of non-originating material is 63.67%. The importer submitted another cost break up against bill of entry no.659600/IMP/AGT-LCS/2020 dated 26.09.2020 for clearing the soybean oil packing in Tin wherein they shown the percentage of profit is 14.56% (Copy enclosed). It appears that their profit direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 it appears apposite that the text thereof is reproduced : GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) North Eastern Region 110 MG Road, Shillong, Meghalaya Phone: 0364-2222597,2225325, 2229005, 2210103 Fax: 0364-2223440, 2229007 Email: [email protected] E-Mail File No.VIII(48)10/CUS/TECH/2020/Pt.I Dated 20th November, 2020 The Director (International Customs Division) Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Room No.49, North Block, New Delhi-110001, Email: [email protected] Sub:Verification of Country of Origin under Rule 6(1)(b) of CAROTAR 2020-reg. Sir, It is to inform you that the following importers have filed Bills of Entry for import of soybean oil/galvanized steel sheet claiming preferential duty under Notification No.75/2006-Cus(N.T) dated 30.06.2006, as amended. During the course of clearance, there were reasons to believe that the Rules of Origin have not been met and accordingly, further information and supporting documents were sought under Rule 5(1) of CAROTAR 2020 : Sl. Name of Importer Bill of Entry No. No. 1. M/s Delwar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....option/request for provisional assessment for release of the goods on furnishing security amounting equal to the difference between the duty provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Act and the preferential duty claimed. But the petitioner has refused to make such request inasmuch as, the said provision cannot be applied when the proper officer did not mention the reasons for his doubt to the petitioner when the Certificate of Origin had been sought to be verified. 20. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel has drawn attention of this court to the representation filed by the petitioner on 16.11.2020 where it had been asserted that the new provision as introduced by Section 28(D)(A)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 has shifted onus on importer to possess origin related information [see Rule 4 of the CAROTAR] which the custom authority can requisition, if the origin criteria is found not met in the course of verification as prescribed. That can be made under Rule 5 of the CAROTAR. No assessment under Section 17 or provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act has been done and consequently the soybean oil imported from Bangladesh under SAFTA are warehoused without assessment by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal information suggesting that the particulars given on the said Certificate of Origin may be inaccurate, unless the retroactive check is requested on a random basis. (c) The Customs Authority of the importing Contracting State may suspend the provisions on preferential treatment while awaiting the result of verification. However, without prejudice to the national legislations the competent authority of the importing Contracting State shall not suspend the customs clearance of the consignment subject to a guarantee in any of its modalities in order to preserve fiscal interests, as a pre- condition for completion of customs clearance. (d) The Issuing Authority receiving a request for retrospective check shall respond within three (3) months after the receipt of the request." Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel has therefore emphatically submitted that the verification is entirely covered by the provisions of Article 15(a) of the said Rules or protocol. The reasonable doubt can only be raised in respect of authenticity of the document or the accuracy of the information regarding the true origin of the products in question or of certain parts thereof. For purpose of the latter part,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by stating that the petitioner may opt for provisional assessment and furnish the security amount equal to the difference between the duty provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act and the preferential duty claimed. 26. Having appreciated the submissions and scrutinized the records vis a vis the provisions of the relevant instrument and the statute, this court has noted that the petitioner has not challenged the process of the verification, but the petitioner has made serious allegation that without affording any opportunity to the petitioner in respect of meeting any deficiency, the petitioner had been asked to opt or request for provisional assessment for purpose of clearing the goods on furnishing the security [100% bank guarantee] for the difference between the duty provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Act and the preferential duty claimed. It is apparent that when the verification was initiated, no record was available with the respondents nor any communication was made to the petitioner that the verification was being under Rule 6(1)(a) or Rule 6(1)(b) or Rule 6 (4)(c) of the CAROTAR 2020 and hence, there was no reference to the security (BG). ....