TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order dated 09.02.2021 rejected the appeal, therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Shri Pradeep Korde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset, submits that the identical cases were made out against many importers of cocoa powder imported from Malaysia who had availed the FTA benefit under Notification 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011. In all the cases, the dispute raised by the department is that the value addition of 35% condition was not complied with. It is his submission that the certificate of origin was not discarded, no independent verification was carried out in the present case. In case of common doubt by the custom authority, the certificate of origin cannot be doubted with. Hence, the benefit was wrongly denied. He placed reliance on the various judgments on the identical issue as under: Shirazee Traders-Final Order No. 12060 of 2023 dated 15.09.2023 RomilJewelry- Final Order No. 86251-86265/2023 dated 29.08.23 Bullion and Jewellers 2016 (335) ELT 639 (Del.) Riddi Siddhi Bullions Ltd. 2017 (355) ELT 585 (Hyd.) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sent to Malaysian Customs Authority for verification or that the goods in any case were concerned with the same set of suppliers in Malaysia as well as Ghana. 2. In view of the foregoing, the Learned Advocate pleads that the whole case of the department is based on presumptions and assumptions that all the above might have transpired in their cases also vis-a-vis the cases which were investigated by the DRI. Specifically his submission is that the confirmation of any duty on the basis of such presumption and assumption is not maintainable in law. Learned Advocate further points that even those cases were DRI conducted investigation the proceedings were eventually dropped as exhibited in order No. 126/2016-17/CC/NS-I/JNCH pertaining to M/s. Morde Foods Pvt. Ltd. delivered on 2nd February, 2017. 3. Learned AR confronted with the position fairly reiterates the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the lower authority. 4. Considered, we find that in the present case, the lower authorities have confirmed order simply on the basis of a communication of DRI whichpertained to different parties about which verification was done. In the present instance, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal vide Final Order No. 10141 of 2024 dated 11.01.2024 "Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Global Exim (appellant herein) imported Alkalised Cocoa Powder claiming FTA benefits on imports of Cocoa Powder (CTH 18050000) from Malaysia under Custom Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 and Notification No. 53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011. The Bill of Entry was finally assessed and the goods were allowed to be cleared extending the benefit of the above notifications. The Appellant had produced, inter alia, certificate of origin provided by the supplier in Form A-1, which was accepted by the proper officer without demur. 1.1. On a purported review of the said Bill of Entry, it is claimed that investigation conducted revealed that based on certificate of origin issued for the said product, the goods were derived from Cocoa beans of Ghana origin and in such cases, based on the prevalent International price as well as information available on supplier website, it appeared that the regional value addition would only be in the region of 13-17% as against minimum qualifying value addition of 35%. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice dated-30.04.2019 came to be issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Alkalised Cocoa powder satisfies the country of origin criteria and therefore are eligible for concessional duty under Notification No . 46 of 2011-Cus. 2.2. He submits that ground on which benefit of exemption under custom Notification No.46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 and Notification No. 53/2011/ Cus dated 01.07.2011 is denied on the assumption that value of addition by the supplier was less than 35%. Admittedly, the appellant had produced the valid COO'S issued by the competent authority in terms of the notifications. Considering the submissions that, there is no powers with the customs authority to reject COO given by the concerned contracting State issuing authority. Therefore, COO issued by the designated authority cannot be dishonored unless the same is cancelled by the same authority. It is not the case here. 2.3. He further submits that, before the process of retroactive check regards provided under Article 16. Firstly, the same was not fully complied with. Secondly, exporting country has not held COO invalid, in such circumstances also COO cannot be rejected. In support he placed reliance on the Judgments: M/s. BDB Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. CC, Kolkat....