TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against Order-in-Original No. MUN-CUSTM-000-COM-14-20-21 dated 30.12.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Mundra, Kutch. 1.1 Brief facts are that intelligence received from DRI indicated that the Appellant and other parties were importing CR SS Flat products viz. Coil/Sheet/ Strip from M/s Bharu Stainless Steel, SDN BHD, Malaysia by availing concessional rare of duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, as amended and Notification 53/2011-Cus. dated 01.07.2011, read with Notification No. 189/2009-Cus (N.T.) dated 31.12.2009 by misrepresenting the Regional value content (RVC) to be above 35%, whereas the actual RVC was much less than 35%. The intelligence indicated that M/s Bharu Stainless ste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nefit of the Exemption Notification on the disputed goods and demanding custom duty. In adjudication, Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order confirmed the customs duty demand and imposed the penalties. Being aggrieved the appellants are before this Tribunal. 2. Shri T. Vishwanathan, Shri Manish Jain & Ms, Shruti Khanna, Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that exemption has been correctly availed in terms of the Notification in question and the related Country of Origin Rules. According to Rule 5 of the Country of Origin Rules, the only conditions to be fulfilled are (a) change in the tariff sub-heading of non-originating material at the six digit level and (b) the achievement of the requisite value addition of 35% or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he entire demand is barred by limitation. The entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation. The allegation that the exporter has mis-represented the country of export can hardly be a ground to invoke extended period of limitation in the present case. The importer has no role or say in the application made by the exporter in the exporting country before issuing authority. The fact is that exporter here is one of the supplier to the appellant. In identical circumstance, the commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi vide Order No. 19/2019/MKS/Pr. Commr./ Import/ICD/TKD dtd. 09.09.2019 and Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur vide Order No. 08/2020 -COMMR dtd. 31.07.2010 have dropped the proceedings similarly situated importer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndergone at least a change in tariff sub-heading level i.e. at six digit of the Harmonized System, provided that the final process of the manufacture is performed with the territory of the exporting party. 4.1 We find that in the present disputed matter appellant has claimed the goods to be originating in Malaysia as provided under Rule 5 of the AIFTA Rules i.e. not wholly obtained or produced. In respect of all the subject consignments, the appellant produced certificate of origin in Form A-1 issued by the Ministry of Internal Trade and Industry (MITI) of Government of Malaysia showing the Regional Value content of the subject goods as more than 35% +CTSH . However case of the department is that intelligence gathered by the DRI officers s....