TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lls of Lading received from Shipping Line that goods covered by Bills of Entry Nos. at Sl. Nos. (iv) & (v) were imported into India under Bills of Lading No. PKGMUN23764 and PKGMUN23765 both dated 23.11.2012 showing port of loading as Port Kelang (for Mundra) were the same as those loaded earlier from Shanghai for Port Kelang under Bills of Lading Nos. FMPL/SHA/PKG/1211006 and FMPL/SHA/PKG/1211006A both dated 05.11.2012. For the remaining 03 bills of entry, there is no such evidence. Anti-Dumping duty is demanded under Notification No.82/2011-Cus dated 25.08.2011 by treating the goods covered by all 05 bills of entry of Chinese origin, by brushing aside the Certificate of origin produced by the appellant. 2. Shri Vikash Mehta, Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the certificate of origin showing the goods of Malaysian origin has not been proved as fake or not genuine. Therefore, merely on the basis of bill of lading issued by shipping line. It cannot be concluded that the goods are not of Malaysia origin. He refers to Rule 9 of Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of The Rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tory of any non-Party; or, (b) The goods are transported through the territory of any non-Party where,- (i) The transit entry is justified for geographical reasons or transport requirements; (ii) The goods have not entered into trade or consumption in the territory of such non-Party; (iii) The goods have not undergone any operation in the territory of such non-Party other than unloading and reloading or any operation required to keep the goods in good condition; and, (iv) The goods have remained under the control of the customs authority of such non-Party." From the above rule it is mandatory that in case of any doubt about the authenticity of the certificate of origin. The Customs Authority of Government of India must request the Issuing Authority i.e. in the present case the Malay Chamber of Commerce Malaysia to check the authenticity of the certificate of origin. 4.1 We find that the department, when made an allegation about the country of origin did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of India and Malaysia) Rules 2011. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same Schedule does give power to the contracting states to review/modify the said Rules. 4.1 It is also observed that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zuari Industries Ltd. v. CCE & Cus (Supra) held as follows:- "9. Firstly, on the facts we find that the assessee had given to the Sponsoring Ministry its entire Project Report. In that report they had indicated that for the expansion of the fertilizer project they needed an extra item of capital goods, namely, 6MW Captive Power Plant. In their application, the assessee had made it clear that the fertilizer project was dependant on continuous flow of electricity, which could be provided by such Captive Power Plant. Therefore, it was not open to the Revenue to reject the assessees case for nil rate of duty on the said item, particularly when the certificate says so. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Tullow India Operations Ltd. (supra), this Court held that essentiality certificate must be treated as a proof of fulfilment of the eligibility conditions by the importer for obtaining the benefit of the exemption notification. We may add that, the essentiality certificate is also a proof that an item like Captive Power ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra) after relying upon case laws of Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court, held as follows:- "7. We have heard both sides and examined the appeal records. This is the third round of litigation in the present case. The issue involved is the installed capacity of the appellant vis-`-vis their eligibility to Notification Nos. 24/91 and 5/93-C.E. The concession of notification is available when the installed capacity is not exceeding 1,98,000 T.P.A. It is admitted fact that the Director of Industries, Madhya Pradesh, who is designated as a competent authority in the Notification itself has more than once certified the installed capacity of the appellant to be 1,98,000/- T.P.A. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in normal circumstances such a certificate is to be acted upon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed this Tribunal to examine the various material relied on by the Revenue to contest the appellant's claim for exemption. We perused of the impugned order which was passed after the specific direction of this Tribunal to approach the competent authority for re-examining all the facts, material, evidence, furnished by both the sides to certify the installed capacity. As per t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all the evidences which were examined and the certificate was reiterated by the competent authority. As already noted, no other evidence was left to be considered." 4.4 In view of the above observations and the ratios laid down by the Courts certificates of origin produced by the Appellant cannot be discounted. There is no evidence on record that designated authority of Bangladesh under SAPTA Rules was maliciously involved with the supplier of cloves and the Appellant. 5. Adjudicating Authority has relied upon some indigenous sources to conclude that neither the imported goods are "processed cloves" nor the value addition to extent claimed is justified. Appellant asked for the cross examination of Shri Sunil Doletram Chhabria, Shri C.J.Jose, Dr.J.Chakraborty and Shri Pratab Chakroborty as per para-18 of Appellants reply dated 05.12.2005 to the show cause notice dated 26.08.2005. These facts have been duly reflected in the submissions of the main appellant in the Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2007 but the request of cross examination of the witnesses has been conveniently avoided by the Adjudicating Authority and no observations are given as to why request of the appellant for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as onion is neither manufactured nor made nor processed. On this assumption, contends the learned counsel, that levy of sales tax on onion imported from outside the State of Assam is hit by article 301 of the Constitution which deals with freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India. It is argued that article 304(a) cannot come to the rescue of the State for justifying this levy inasmuch as article 304(a) provides that the legislature of a State may by law impose on goods imported from other States any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that State are subject, so, however, as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid and Company v. State of Madras and State of Rajasthan v. Ghasiram Mangilal. On the other hand, Mr.Goswami, learned counsel for the State of Assam, contends that there is no discrimination between onion imported from outside and onion grown in the State of Assam inasmuch as both are subjected to levy of sales tax. The argument in this connection ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....." 5.2 In view of the above case law of Gauhati High Court department cannot sit as on Adjudicator over the certificate of origin given by the designated authority under SAPTA Rules. Only an appropriate authority of Bangladesh could have certified as to what could be the value addition, after satisfying about the nature of processing activities done by the supplier and the extent of expenses incurred by such supplier in carrying out the activities of cleaning, handling, storage, sorting, packing etc.." B) In the case of R. S. Industries (Rolling Mills) Ltd. (supra) similar view was expressed by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal, the relevant part of the order is reproduced below: "5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We note that the denial of exemption, as claimed by the importer, is on the ground that the value addition in Sri Lanka fall below 35%. We note that the certificates of origin have been issued by Competent Authority of Sri Lankan Government. The same is not in dispute. We already note that the certificate were not recalled or cancelled by the issuing authority. The only ground for denial of exemption is, the Zinc Ingots value subject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Department of Commerce, Government of Sri Lanka addressed to Commissioner of Customs (Imports), JNPT." C) This Tribunal in the case of M/s. MJ Gold Pvt. Ltd. (supra) dealing with the similar issue, has passed the following order: 5. Having heard the rival contentions, it is observed that vide the order under challenge the appellant is denied the duty exemption benefit for importing gold jewellery from Indonesia, despite Indonesia being the country in Appendix of the Notification No. 046/2011 dated 01.06.2011 which exempts the imports from Indonesia to such amount of duty as is mentioned in 4 th column of said notification. Foremost the Notification is perused. It is observed that the Notification exempts the goods of the description as is specified in Column 3 of the Table appended thereon and falling under Chapter sub heading or tariff item of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 as is specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of the said table, from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon as is in excess of the amount collected at the rate specified in column 4 of the said table, when the goods imported into the Republic of India when the goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Customs Authority at the port or place of importation. The duplicate shall be retained by the Issuing Authority in the exporting party. The triplicate shall be retained by the importer. The quadruplicate shall be retained by the exporter. (c) In cases where an AIFTA Certificate of Origin is not accepted by the Customs Authority of the importing party, such AIFTA Certificate of Origin shall be marked accordingly in box 4 and the original AIFTA Certificate of Origin shall be returned to the Issuing Authority within a reasonable period but not to exceed two months. The Issuing Authority shall be duly notified of the grounds for the denial of preferential tariff treatment. (d) In cases where an AIFTA Certificate of Origin is not accepted, as stated in paragraph (c), the Issuing Authority shall provide detailed, exhaustive clarification addressing the grounds for the denial of preferential tariff treatment raised by the importing party. The Customs Authority of the importing party shall accept the AIFTA Certificate of Origin and grant the preferential tariff treatment if the clarification is found satisfactory." 8. Apparently and admittedly, the Customs Authority while verifyin....