TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....properly assessing the self-assessed import in the bill of entry to avail benefit of Notification No.46/2011- CUS dated 01.06.2011 which was not admissible to the importer. It is the revenue's case that as the importer mis-stated the facts at the time of import, therefore the said short payment of duty and for which act, the importer has also rendered himself liable for appropriate penal action under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The facts of the case are that vide 18 Bills of Entry, filed for import of tin ingots from Malaysia, during the period 22.11.2013 to 27.12.2016, the appellant cleared the same availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.46/2011-CUS in terms of agreement on trade in goods under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Co-operation between India and Association of South-East Asian Nations. It is the case of the appellant that they furnished valid Country of Origin (COO) Certificate at the time of clearance of the impugned goods, as were provided to them by the supplier of the impugned goods M/s. Malaysia Smelting Corporation, Malaysia and sought concessional rate of duty in terms of Sl.No.1002 of Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the goods correctly and evaded the payment of duty of Customs. Since, the importer noticee self assessed the goods wrongly, non-levy of customs duty on the subject goods is the sole responsibility-of the importer-noticee. The importer-noticee mis-represented the facts in the Bill of Entry (B/E) by availing the benefit of Notification No.46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 which was not admissible in their case. The importer notice mis-stating the facts mentioned above, has made himself liable to be penalized under the provisions of Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962." 6. Thus, from the above, the foremost and very pertinent question arises about invocation of extended period of limitation based on elements of suppression, willful misstatement or collusion on the part of the appellant. As noted from records the appellant tendered a detailed reply before the lower authority, pointing out that there was nothing in the show cause notice, to allege a positive act on their part for any of the ingredients of Section 28(4). It is necessary to consider and point out that the appellants submitted the Country of Origin(COO) Certificate duly issued by the appropriate authority, in the country o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting such irregular certificates. Also there's is no evidence to sustain the charge of supply of tin ore free of charge, other than a bland statement. Moreover, there is nothing in law that casts a burden on the importer to be aware of the factual details that go into the issuance of such a COO certificate. No malafides can thus be attached to the importer. Nothing prevented the authorities to slap the notice within normal period of limitation. If the said goods were cleared at Nil rate as per such COO Certificates issued and not at the otherwise leviable rate of 5% advance the importer cannot be faulted upon. 8. It is quite evident, that the importer would unhesitatingly rely on and believe in the veracity of the documents as are supplied to him by the exporter. To state that the importer was also involved in issuance and obtaining of such COO Certificates without any evidence cannot be justified. The impugned COO Certificates are issued by the Government authorities of Malyasia and any omission/misrepresentation therein cannot be faulted to be the doings of the importer. Under the circumstances, it is therefore evident that the extended period of limitation would not be applicab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned order would not sustain. Having arrived at the conclusion that the show cause notice invoking extended period is unsustainable, we are of the view that question for consideration of this argument can as well be deferred and not warranted to be considered at this juncture. We therefore refrain from offering any comment on this plea. 11. In view of our observations aforesaid, it is clear that the demand made in the impugned show cause notice, would not survive as there is nothing in the notice/order to impute knowledge and willful intent on the part of the appellant to deliberately submit an incorrect improper Country of Origin Certificate with intent for evasion of duty. The impugned order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, NOIDA, is therefore set aside. 12. The Revenue has also filed appeal in the matter seeking to impose penalty on the appellant under Section 114A of the Customs Act 1962, as proposed vide Para 13(iii) of the Show Cause Notice impugned in the matter. However, we find that the ld.Principal Commissioner has in pursuance of her order imposed on the appellant, equal amount of penalty, as the duty confirmed. The relevant Para 13 of the notic....