TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 360
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. 1.1 The main issue in the present case relates to country of origin of goods. The case of the department is that the Appellant herein had mis-declared the country of origin (herein after referred to as COO) of goods as Zambia instead of Iran. It is relevant to note that the present proceedings have no duty implication as the Appellant admittedly never intended to avail any duty benefit basis the country of origin certificates (herein after referred to as COO certificates) and have paid duty at proper value determined on the basis of LME price prevalent on the date of assessment. 1.2 The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant during the Normal course of business had raised Purchase Order on NBJ International FZ-LLC, Dubai, UAE (herein after referred to as the supplier) for supply of Copper Cathode on CFR, Nhava Sheva. Accordingly, it was the duty of the supplier to supply the goods to the Buyer (Appellant) at the destination port viz., Nhava Sheva. 1.3 Four Bills of Entry were filed by the Appellant on the basis of documents provided by the supplier which included COO Certificates showing goods to be of Zambian Origin. The COO certificate contains the stamp of Zambi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment which was challenged before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 27.06.2022 permitted clearance of goods, on Appellant furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. 1.9 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Customs Department released the goods provisionally. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice (referred to as SCN) dated 04.01.2023 was issued calling upon the Appellant and its directors to show cause as to why - a) 1497.83 MTs of Copper Cathode conforming to LME Grade A having assessable value Rs. 110,41,45,320 imported under Bills of Entry No. 7078318, 7078308, 7078197 and 7078275 all dated 14.01.2022 should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962; b) Penalty should not be imposed in terms of Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962; c) Penalty should not be imposed in terms of Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 1.10 The SCN was issued on the following allegations: (i) The Appellants have mis-declared country of origin of goods as Zambia in Bills of Entry; (ii) The Appellants have wilfully mis-declared country of origin of goods as Zambia instead of Iran in registration application filed in Non-Ferrous Metals Import Monitoring Sy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating Authority made in the Order-in-Original. 1.14 The present Appeals have been filed against the impugned order. 2. We have heard and considered the oral arguments made during the hearing and written submissions filed post hearing. During the hearing the Shri Jitendra Motwani, learned counsel for the Appellant has filed a synopsis of arguments challenging the impugned order. The Synopsis of arguments are reproduced below for sake of clarity: * The entire case of the Department which has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the Appellant has mis-declared the COO of the imported goods as Zambia instead of Iran and registration obtained under NFMIMS basis the said document is incorrect and therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation. To confirm the allegation of goods being imported from Iran instead of Zambia, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously held that the COO certificates furnished by the Appellants were fake/forged and the same were knowingly used by the Appellants. * The Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the statements of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Jane (referred to Mr. Jane), the authorized representative of SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Amol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncy viz., SGS Iran; * That the department has not even made an attempt to reach out to the Zambian Authority to check on the authenticity of COO certificates. The COO certificates being properly stamped and signed cannot be overlooked and or brushed aside by the customs department without any evidence of same being not authentic and unless the same is cancelled or the same is proclaimed as fake by the issuing authority; the department cannot go beyond the said COOs as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zuari Industries Vs Commissioner of Customs 2007 (210) E.L.T. 648 (S.C.); * The letter dated 26.05.2022 issued by the DRI to Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva does not pertain to COO certificates pertaining to bills of entry assessed under impugned order. In any event while the said letter mentions about some overseas enquires with Zambia Revenue Authority, the same does not produce any communication issued by the Zambian Authority questioning the correctness of the COOs. The letter does not disclose the nature of enquiries as well. The said letter, therefore being cryptic cannot be relied upon in an event. A perusal of the said letter clarifies that the same was iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any party in Iran. Furthermore, there was no contract between Appellant and any party in Iran including National Iranian Industries Co. or Coppernium International FZE. The Appellant had entered into a contract with the supplier NBJ International, Dubai and it is not even the case of the Department in SCN or in any of the orders passed by authorities below, that Appellant was dealing with either National Iranian Industries Co or Coppernium International FZE or was aware of their existence. Hence, the finding that the Appellants knowingly submitted forged COO certificates is without any basis and based on presumption and assumption. * It is submitted that none of the activities viz., switching of BL, inspection of goods was done at the behest or within the knowledge of the Appellant. The said activities form the basis of the proposed demand. The Appellant undisputedly had a contract with the foreign supplier in Dubai who had supplied the goods as per the PO. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said purported documents which relate to third parties cannot be the basis of confirming demand against the Appellants. None of the persons whose statement has been relied upon has named t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ific. Hence, providing wrong COO certificates does not have any bearing on the said registration, especially when the competent authority i.e. DGFT had not cancelled the said registration till date. Further there is no prohibition for import of goods from Iran as has been accepted by the commissioner (Appeals) himself and as held by Bombay High court in Global Ace Shipping Lines Inc [Writ Petition (L) No. 5118 of 2020] * That the Appellant declared the country of origin based on documents supplied by the foreign supplier. It is settled law that charge of mis-declaration cannot be sustained against the importer when Bills of Entry were filed based on documents received from foreign suppliers. * No documentary proof whatsoever has been produced by the Department to establish that the Appellants had any prior knowledge that the COO certificates are purportedly not genuine. * That that the Appellant had paid duty as per full rate applicable and without availing any benefit of country of origin. It is settled law that where there is no change in duty payable, the wrong mentioning of country of origin would not amount to misdeclaration. * That the goods were not mis-declared for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, the departmental authorised representative reiterated the findings of the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 4. The entire issue in this appeal relates to alleged mis-declaration of Country of Origin of copper cathodes imported by the Appellant. As recorded above there is no duty implication in the matter inasmuch as the Appellant has never intended to avail any duty benefit basis the COO certificates in dispute. The relevant para of the show cause is reproduced below for sake of clarity: "6.1 As per discussion made in the foregoing paras and documentary evidences on records, it is noticed that M/s. Amglo Resources Private Limited filed four Bill of Entry bearing No. 7078318, 7078308, 7078197 and 7078275 all dated 14.01.2022 under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 for import of 1497.83 MTs of 'Copper Cathode Conforming to LME Grade 'A' having assessable value Rs. 110,41,45,320/- through ICD Tumb. The importer had declared Basic Customs Duty @ 5%, Social Welfare Cess @ 10% and IGST @ 18% in the Bills of Entry filed by them. The importer had declared Zambia on import documents as Country of Origin of the said goods. The importer had submitted Country of Origin certificates no. ZM N 27....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndervaluation of goods. Given the above it is submitted that the condition to furnish BG of 15% of value is extremely onerous, more so when the Appellant has shown his will to deposit entire amount of duty on value declared by it." 30 to 34 ....... 35. Apart from the same, the appellant herein has always been willing to pay the entire duty amount of around Rs. 25 crores at the time of clearance of the goods, which was not the case in Hazel Mercantile case (supra) as in the case of Hazel no duty was payable on export goods. Also, it is an undisputed fact that the department has alleged mis-declaration on the part of the appellant based on Country of Origin certificate which in normal cases is issued by the appropriate authority of the exporting country and the importer in India has no role in the issuance of the same. The investigation on this behalf is ongoing and yet to be concluded. 36 to 38 ........ 39. Further it is a settled law that an importer unless proven otherwise beyond doubt cannot be said to have any role in the issuance of a COO as the same is issued by the competent authority of the originating country. However, at this point in time, it is also important to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the seals that were cut from the containers were of SGS group of companies and the seal numbers were matching with the inspection certificate issued by SGS Iran. He further deposed that Bill of Lading No. ATSBNDTUM2112412 of Asian Tiger Shipping LLC was submitted wherein the consignor was mentioned as National Iranian Copper Industries Company and consignee was mentioned as M/s. Coppernium International FZE UAE and the inspection of the goods were carried out by SGS Iran on directions of M/s. Sanaye Va Maaden Mes Kerman Zamin at Bunder Abbas Port, Iran. Basis the same, the department in para 5.1 has alleged that the since the goods were inspected in Iran between 22.12.2021 to 27.12.2021 and further the fact that the Inspection Report dated 08.01.2022 records that "prior to loading, all cargo stock were covered by tarpaulin" clearly show that the goods originated from Iran instead of Zambia. On the basis of this deposition, it appears that the department has alleged that the Appellant had created whole bunch of manipulated/forged documents including the country-of-origincertificate in connivance with the exporter/foreign parties to show that the impugned goods originated from Zamb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Origin Certificate bearing Ref. No. ZM/N/2741 is not authentic. 4.9 Basis the above evidence the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine on the Appellant. Penalties have been imposed on the Appellant and the two directors under both section 112(a) and 114(AA) of the Act. 4.10 It is the case of the Appellant that the evidence relied upon by the department does not remotely show that the goods had originated from Iran. Having submitted proper COO certificates stamped by Zambia Revenue Authorities, the same could not be declared as forged/fake on basis of presumptions and assumptions. No efforts were taken by the department to reach out to the Zambian authorities to check the authenticity of the COO certificates. Similarly, the letter issued by DRI to Nhava Sheva Commissionerate cannot further the case of the department as the letter does not disclose the nature of overseas enquires nor does it disclose the manner or mode by which it was learnt from the Zambia Revenue Authority that the Country of Origin was not authentic. It is submitted that the entire case has been made on presumption and the allegations that the Appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om Zambia against the true country of origin i.e. Iran. 4.14 Whether there is any evidence to back and support the above allegations made in the show cause notice will have to be looked into by us. a) Supreme Court in the case of Gokuldas Exports (supra) has held that "A party which asserts a fact has to establish it. In this case it was the plaintiff who asserted that second revalidation was permissible. It was for the plaintiff to establish it." b) Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Phoenix Mills v/s Union of India 2004 (168) ELT 310 has held that : "16. Having considered the rival submissions at length, the controversy lies in a very narrow compass which can be adjudicated upon the text of the show cause notices itself. The show cause notice dated 2nd November, 1992 incorporated at Exh. 'E' issued by respondent No. 3 specifically, states, "for the purposes of printing of fabric the petitioners require "printing paste", and the assessee bring duty paid colour from market and mix it up with other material such as chemicals and kerosene. The mixing giving rise to the substance known as "printing paste" is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3204.29 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss cogent evidence is produced in support of the said claim. It is the case of the department that the goods imported by the Appellant did not originate in Zambia as declared but were from Iran. The Appellant on the other hand had submitted COO certificates which are stamped by Zambia Revenue Authority, Tanzania Customs, Lusaka Customs Port, Customs Service Division and Tanzania Revenue Authority. Nothing stopped the department from reaching out to the issuing authority viz., Zambia revenue authority through official channel to check the veracity of the COO certificates and understand if the same were issued by them or not. No communication to this effect has been produced before us. It cannot be even conclusively said that an attempt was made in this regard. We are of the view that communication with the Zambian Authorities was the first logical step that the department ought to have taken if they intended to support the allegation that the COO certificates were forged/fake or not authentic. Although the Department is disputing the correctness of COO certificates, they have not even attempted to reach out to the Zambian Authority to ascertain the veracity of the certificates. Henc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vent relates to COO No. ZM/N/2741 dated 03.11.2022 whereas the COO certificates involved in the present case were No.ZM/N/2742, No. ZM/N/2743, No. ZM/N/2744 and No. ZM/N/2745 all dated 8.11.2022. The reasoning adopted in the impugned order in Para 8.3 to the effect that since all 80 containers originated from the same source of country on a single Bill of lading which were subsequently split into 4 bills of lading would be enough to show that if one COO certificate is found fake the others would also be fake is totally incorrect. The reason provided by the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the submissions of the Appellant is that the findings of the Adjudicating authority has not been rebutted by the Appellant. The said finding itself is faulty and contrary to the records of the case as the Appellant in grounds of Appeal had disputed the findings of the Adjudicating authority basis the said letter. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the Appellant is right to contend that the finding provided by the Adjudicating authority in Para 12.12 to 12.14.2 of the Adjudication order as reproduced in the impugned order at Para 8.2 itself is beyond the show cause notice as the show cause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be the basis to hold that the COO certificates impugned in the present case were not authentic. 4.17 Coming back the allegations made in para 6.6.2 of the show cause notice, the department has alleged that the importer connived with the different entities abroad like the exporter, Shipping Line/Agent to create whole bunch of manipulated/forged documents including the country of origin certificate to show that the impugned goods originated from Zambia against the true country of origin i.e. Iran. Comparing the aforesaid allegation with the contents of the show cause notice, we are constrained to note that no investigation whatsoever has been carried out by the department against any of the parties mentioned above to remotely suggest what has been alleged by the department. Mr. Jane in his statement had deposed that the consignor in the first Bill of lading was National Iranian Copper Industries Co whereas the consignee was Coppernium International. The inspection of goods was carried out by SGS Iran on directions of M/s Sanaye Va Maaden Mes Kerman Zamin. Apart from not reaching out to Zambian authorities no attempt has been made by the department to even investigate any of the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....even alleged that the Appellant knew about the said purported trade or was a party to it. No documentary evidence has been produced to suggest otherwise. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the finding of the Commisisoner (Appeals) in relation to manipulation of bill of lading and or connivance of the Appellant for the same deserves to be set aside being unsupported by any evidence. 4.20 The Appellant in fact has been contending right from the adjudication stage that it had no contract with any Iranian company who got the goods inspected and the said parties were not known to them in any manner. The authorities below have completely overlooked this aspect. The department while making allegations as grave as one made in para 6.6.2 was expected to establish a clear link to allege connivance on the part of the Appellant. 4.21 Even otherwise the department has relied upon statements of following persons to hold that goods have originated from Iran and not from Zambia: (a) Mr Dhiraj Kumar Jane, the authorized representative of SGS India Pvt Ltd; (b) Amol Pongde, the authorized representative of the shipping agency viz., Radiant Maritime India Pvt Ltd; (c) Mr. Visha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can be done as per contractual arrangement between parties. In the present case the inspection was done with respect to the first leg of transaction between Iran and UAE, to which neither the supplier was a party nor the Appellant. Most importantly the inspection report that is purported to have been submitted by Mr. Jane during the recording of his statement has not been made a part of RUDs. We are unable to understand the reason for which the said document has not been placed on record, especially when the case of the department hinges on the same. The said error is not condonable as it is a settled law that department cannot go beyond the scope of SCN and documents relied upon therein. It is not forthcoming from the SCN or statement of Mr. Jane as to what was the basis to hold that M/s National Iranian Copper Industries Co. was manufacturer of the goods as we have no doubt in our minds that inspection of goods cannot be equated to manufacture of goods. It is hard to believe that when Mr. Jane did not even know about the entity who had ordered inspection of goods, how did he gather knowledge that M/s National Iranian Copper Industries Co. was the shipper/manufacturer. Neither doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Coppernium International and NBJ International (the supplier in the present case) which purportedly have the same signatures are not a part of RUDs of SCN. Accordingly, there is no way for us to test if the statement of Mr. Pongde on signatures being same be taken as true. Further we agree with the submission of the Appellant that Mr. Pongde was not a forensic or handwriting expert, and the said letter was not sent for signature testing by the department. Accordingly, we hold that statement of Mr. Pongde does not in any manner further the case of the department that goods were of Iran Origin. 4.25 Having held that above we are constrained to note that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Appellant has not challenged the statements of the above two person is erroneous. Apart from the fact that nothing incriminating qua the Appellant and its Directors has been stated in the statement, the Appellant have challenged the statements of the both the witnesses on the ground that same is contrary to the documentary evidence i.e. stamped COOs. The said challenge was made before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well. 4.26 In relation to statement of Mr Vishal Amlani the relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods have originated from Iran and not Zambia, is incorrect and has been given by non-appreciation or mis interpretation of statements and /or document/submissions of the Appellant. 4.29 One of the arguments of the Appellant is that the entire basis on which the SCN has been issued viz: quality control stickers of December 2021 being incorrect and/or inconclusive to prove origination of goods has not been dealt with by the authorities below. It is the case of the Appellant that merely because the COO certificates were issued on 08.11.2021 and the packing sticker were of December 2021 cannot be the reason for department to allege that the Appellant had submitted fake/forged COO certificates by mentioning the COO as Zambia. It has been argued that the goods may have been shipped from Zambia to Iran and from there to Jabel Ali and then to India cannot be ruled out and the supplier of goods can as per his choice get the quality of goods checked as per his choice. Reliance has been placed on the statement of Mr. Satish Amlani to demonstrate that either of the Iran parties mentioned were not known to the Appellant and the reasons for getting quality testing done in Iran can be fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bill of entry shall ensure the following, namely:- (a) the accuracy and completeness of the information given therein; (b) the authenticity and validity of any document supporting it; and (c) compliance with the restriction or prohibition, if any, relating to the goods under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force.] 4.31 We don't see how the above Section can be relied upon to shift the burden of proof on the Appellant assessee. The Appellant has submitted certain documents which bear appropriate stamps of the issuing authority. Admittedly the Appellant had no role in issuance of the documents. Since the department had disputed the authenticity of a document issued by a contracting state, the onus was on it to reach out to the Zambian authorities through official route provided under the FTA Regulations. Even otherwise the department could have pursued with the concerned/appropriate ministry to reach out to Zambian authorities and not rely upon letter issued by DRI which is cryptic and does not provide any basis as has been held by us above. What also impresses us is the fact that the Appellant had never intended to avail any benefit from the COOs and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also is erroneous. On the contrary as held by us above, the department has failed to produce a single document or evidence to remotely support their case of mis-declaration of country of origin. As recorded by us above, the investigating authority instead of reaching out Zambian authorities and Iran entities have chosen to rely upon statements of witnesses who were not competent to depose on origin of goods. If that was not enough the department while issuing the show cause notice have not made documents submitted by the said witnesses a part of the show cause notice through RUDs. It is a settled law that documents not made part of relied upon documents cannot be relied upon. Given the above we have no hesitation in holding that the case of the department that goods have originated from Iran instead of Zambia must fail on all counts and we hold accordingly. 4.33 Having held the above, we will not deal with other alternative submissions made by the Appellant during personal hearing. 4.34 We note that the Appellant has submitted that the issue is no longer res-integra and is covered in their favour. Before looking into the said contention, we would like to note that there is no con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed during clandestine call at Bamder Imam Khomeini in Iran between 12th January 2020 and 14th January 2020. .......... 8. The first issue that comes up relates to the place of origin. There is no contention on the part of customs authorities that appellants had insisted upon sourcing from Iran or that they had any commercial engagements with suppliers in Iran that was sought to be obfuscated by a paper trail through Dubai/Sharjah. On the contrary, the entire proceedings have been carried through on the presumption that there is no engagement other than with the contracted suppliers. The sole evidence of goods not being of Taiwanese/Omani origin, as contained in the bills of lading, are the records of passage by MT Braveworth from Fujairah to Sohar en route to India having been interrupted by allegedly calling at Dayyer in Iran and of MT Chem Trader having called at Bander Imam Khamenei in Iran before arrival at Jebel Ali for the next voyage to Mumbai. There is no evidence on record, elicited through official channels, of the facts relating to the movement of the vessels. The impugned orders have placed emphasis on the statements recorded from the master of the respective vessel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... faulty as mere inspection of goods in Iran cannot establish that the goods have originated from Iran. We find force in argument of the Appellant that the possibility of goods having originated in Zambia and then being transhipped through Iran before reaching Dubai cannot be ruled out. The inspection of goods in Iran cannot establish that the goods originated from Iran in absence of any confirmation from the Iranian entities that the goods originated from Iran. Even the statements are not conclusive for reasons stated above. Hence, we are of the view that the decision in the case of Jupiter Dyechem (supra) will apply to the present case on all fours. 4.37 Similarly we note that CESTAT in the case of Agarwal Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus. Mangalore reported in 2020 (373) ELT 280 (Tri-Bang) has decided a similar case in favour of the party. The demands in the said case were dropped with the following observation: - "After considering the submissions of the both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the present case there is no dispute that the impugned goods i.e., bitumen is not prohibited goods either under the Customs Act or Foreign Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and also no evidence has been placed on record to show their involvement in any manner. Accordingly, as a without prejudice argument the Appellant have prayed that redemption fine and penalty cannot be imposed. In any event the quantum of redemption fine and penalty has been challenged too. 4.40 The Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case has held the goods are liable for confiscation under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Act. As per the Commissioner (Appeals) the act of Appellant obtaining 'compulsory registration' under Non-Ferrous Metal Import Monitoring System (NFMIMS) on the basis of false documents viz., COO certificates have rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Apart from the above the goods have been held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act on the ground that the Appellant did not care to verify the genuineness of the COO certificates and chose to file statutory documents basis non authentic and incomplete documents. On the said count redemption fine has been imposed on the Appellant. 4.41 As has been held above, the department has unable to prove that the goods are not from Zambia but Iran and therefore on this count alone the redemption f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not country specific inasmuch as registration is required to be obtained basis the product that is imported irrespective of country of origination or country of import. Accordingly, submission of the Appellant that even if it is assumed that the goods were imported by them from Iran, the same will not have any bearing on the registration obtained under NFMISM needs to be accepted. The said registration in any event has not been disturbed by the DGFT till date and the same supports the argument of the Appellant as being the issuing authority the decision on whether the registration was proper or not will lie with DGFT and not customs. In any event, even as per the department, the goods were required to be compulsorily registered under NFMIMS which has been done. The DGFT has not taken any action on alleged violation of any provision of FTD&R Act or the Rules made thereunder. Keeping in mind the above and since Country of Origin is not a criteria to seek registration under NFMISM the goods cannot be said to have been imported in contravention of section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Further the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that registration under NFMISM is not valid is totally ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellant was aware about the COO certificates was fake or had deliberately used the same. 4.45 We are in agreement with the submission of the Appellant that declaration made by them while filing import documents was basis the documents submitted by the supplier. There is no evidence to the contrary. Infact the statements of witnesses relied upon in the SCN does not state anything against the Appellant or the directors. 4.46 The Appellant had purchased the goods from Dubai based supplier who has confirmed that the goods are of Zambian Origin and to this extent has provided stamped COO certificates to the Appellant. There was neither any contract with any party in Iran nor was any payment made to them. Undisputedly the Appellant had entered into a contract with Dubai based company and payments were also made to it through proper banking channels. On the other hand, the department has not produced any evidence to prove that the goods are not of Zambian origin. Even if it is assumed that the goods were routed through Iran and UAE, that by itself does not conclude that the goods are of Iranian Origin as has been held by co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in Jupiter Dychem (Supra)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect. 4.49 We have noted above that the department has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to conclusively prove that the goods had originated in Iran as against Zambia. Accordingly, the question of imposing any penalty be it under 112(a) of 114AA will not arise. Apart from the above, we have found that no evidence has been produced by the Department to remotely show that there was wilful involvement of the Appeallant in the issuance of COO certificates. The submission of the Appellant that the COO certificates have not been cancelled by the Zambian Authorities cannot be overlooked or brushed aside just because the department has formed a view that the same were not authentic. We have already observed that the said view is without any basis and unsupported by any evidence. Department has not made any effort to check the correctness of the COO certificates and if any attempt is made the documents proving the same have not been annexed to the SCN or placed on record. Furthermore, the Department choosing to not investigate the Iran en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent, however, said ingredient is necessary for imposition of penalty under the said section. 4.52 In Extrusions Vs. Collector of Customs reported as 1994 (70) ELT 52 the Hon'ble Kolkata High court has held as under: "30. In P. Ripakkumar and Company v. Union of India, reported in 1991 (54) E.L.T. 67, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside the confiscation on the finding that the importer had acted bonafide. It was held at page 71 of the report as follows :- "8. On the specific statement made by both the counsels, we propose to examine the question as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of confiscation passed by the Customs authorities and the order of imposition of redemption fine in lieu thereof should be sustained. In these circumstances, Shri Mehta submitted that the action of the petitioners was bonafide and consequently the order of confiscation and redemption fine in lieu thereof should be set aside .... In these circumstances, in our judgment, the import made by the petitioner cannot be faulted on the ground of malafide and the order of confiscation is required to be set aside. As the petitioners have already cleared the goods ....