2025 (9) TMI 1421

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rea) certificates certifying that the goods were consigned from Myanmar Timber Enterprises, Myanmar. The original authority rejected the claim for duty exemption on the ground that the AIFTA certificates submitted did not correspond to the subject consignments, as they showed exports from Myanma Timber Enterprise via Concorde Commodities, and did not mention the claimed supplier Panasia International Ltd., Dubai. Therefore, the imported goods were not entitled to preferential tariff treatment under AIFTA. 3. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority and rejected the appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed a further appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT held that the AIFTA certificates covered the impugned goods imported by the respondent and set aside the order of the appellate authority. The CESTAT allowed the appeal with consequential benefits in the following manner:- 9. From the copy of the AIFTA Certificate No.YAI-0647/2014, dated 16.07.2014, the goods are shown to have been certified to have been consigned from "Myanmar Timber Enterprises, Yangon, Myanmar". The consignee has been certified as "Olam Agro India....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also been indicated in this invoice. 10. From the above, we find that the appellants have adduced sufficient proof to establish that the impugned goods, though invoiced by Panasia International UAE, to the appellant, are of very same ones which have been originally invoiced by Myanmar Timber Enterprises, Myanmar to Concorde Commodities, Singapore and then to M/s.Panasia Agro India Limited. The appellants have been also able to sufficiently establish the seminal connection and linkage with the imported goods invoiced at M/s.Panasia International limited, Dubai and the AIFTA certificates submitted by them. This being so, we are of the considered opinion that the AIFTA certificates very much covers the impugned goods which have been imported by the appellant and in view of Article 22 of the Procedures, issue of invoice by party in third country namely M/s.Panasia International Limited, Dubai will not negate the benefit of the AIFTA certificate and the benefit of Notification No.46/2011-Cus. The impugned order, which holds a contrary view will therefore have to be set aside which we hereby do. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any as per law. Challenging t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....miss this appeal. 7. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that the impugned AIFTA Certificates produced by the first respondent without incorporating the name of the third party viz., M/s.Panasia International, was issued in accordance with the AIFTA Rules or Origin? (ii) Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that based on the impugned AIFTA Certificates produced by the first respondent, they are eligible for grant of exemption from the payment of import duty on the imported cargo under Notification No.46/2011-Cus., dated 01.06.2011?" 8. Under Notification No.46/2011-Cus., the benefit of exemption can be availed only when a valid and genuine certificate of origin is produced in conformity with the AIFTA Rules. It is settled law that the burden is upon the importer to establish eligibility for the exemption and unless the certificate strictly satisfies the conditions prescribed, the benefit cannot be granted. In the present case, the documents relied upon by the respondent cannot be said to constitute a valid certificate for more than one reason. At this ju....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....March 2014, it is wholly improbable and unacceptable that invoices relating to the very same consignment were issued subsequently in May 2014. Such discrepancy casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents. An invoice issued after the shipment cannot establish the origin of goods already transported, and therefore the very foundation of the certificate becomes unreliable. 10. Further, regarding the AIFTA Rules on third-country details, the certificate fails to mention M/s. Panasia International Ltd., Dubai, and instead shows the name of Concorde Commodities PTE Ltd., Singapore, which does not represent the actual third-country details. 11. The Tribunal, however, overlooked these serious defects and proceeded on the footing that since the quantities mentioned in the certificate tallied with the goods imported, the exemption must follow. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Tallying of quantities or vessel particulars cannot substitute for compliance with the mandatory requirements of law. The main issue is not whether the goods correspond to the certificate, but whether the certificate itself is valid, genuine and issued in accordance with the AIFTA Rules. Once t....