TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernment of Malaysia. The appellant-importer submitted 4 certificates of Country of Origin (COOs) issued by the designated authority of the Government of Malaysia to India and the Customs Authorities accepted the same after verification. Accordingly, the appellant had availed the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 on 4 Bills of Entry by presenting 4 country of origin certificates. 2. Later, after about 2 years, the Custom Authorities vide their email dated 19th February, 2021 referred the matter to Malaysian Authority for verifying 8 certificates issued in relation to import of stainless-steel items for retroactive check. 3. By another e-mail, which is relied upon in the Show Cause Notice, dated 19th June, 2021 which is in respect of COO no. KL-2020-AI-21-095346 dated 30-10-2020, it has been mentioned that 6 exporters including M/s. Jentayu Industry did not submit any application for COO for Stainless steel welded pipes and Tubes. On the basis of these two mails the investigation officer claimed that the importer was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. as country-of-origin certificates issued in respect of all the 4 Bills of Ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he certificate. 5.2. It has been further submitted by the appellant that they had sought inspection of the email dated June 19, 2021 and email dated May 18, 2021, which was not granted. Thus, the appellant submits that no assumption or presumption can be drawn that the said any COOs referred in the mails were related to the appellant; in any event, they submit that on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, no demand can be raised. 5.3. The appellant also submits that the adjudicating authority, having chosen not to give inspection of the email, could not have relied upon the email dated June 19, 2021 and email May 18, 2021. 5.4. It is their further contention that there is no document of revocation of the four certificates either addressed to the exporter or the importer to whom it would have been issued, to the effect that it had been actually issued or was part of a formal communication; there is no authenticity of emails as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay versus East Punjab Traders reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.). 5.5. The appellant submits that apart from the two mails, there is no material in the Show Caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned Senior Advocate for the appellant further submitted in reply that receipt of application by ePCO system is denied but the COOs are issued by the issuing country on the basis of underlying documents and verification required for issue of certificates. He states that these aspects are not doubted or denied; thus, he submits that if reliance is to be made on a document the connecting documents and the context all need to relied upon; an isolated document cannot be relied upon. He also points out that the emails are not free from doubt since these emails are neither authenticated nor inspected upon. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. We find that the appellant has filed 4 Bills of Entry for clearance of goods viz. "Nylon Monofilament Fishing Net" manufactured in Malaysia from the foreign manufacturer supplier, namely, M/s. Jentayu Industries., Malaysia under the subject Preferential Trade Agreement. The appellant had availed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011 at the time of import and no objections were raised about the Country of Origin. 9.1. We observe that the emails relied upon in the Show Cause Notice relate to spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.06.2011 in respect of the 4 Bills of Entry by presenting 4 country of origin certificates. Consequently, we hold that the impugned order passed by rejecting the benefit of the said notification is not sustainable. 11.3. In this connection, we find it relevant to refer to the decision rendered in the case of M/s. Shree Shyam Synthetics v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata [Final Order No. 75381 of 2025 dated 18.02.2025 in Customs Appeal No. 75020 of 2025 (CESTAT, Kolkata)], wherein this Tribunal has examined an identical issue and thereafter observed as under: - "8. We find that the appellant has filed 16 Bills of Entry for clearance of goods viz. "Nylon Monofilament Fishing net" manufactured in Kingdom of Thailand from the foreign manufacturer supplier M/s. Asian Import and Export Co. Ltd., Thailand under the Preferential Trade Agreement entered into by and between the Union of India and the Government of Thailand. The appellant had availed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011. At the time of import, no objections were raised about the Country of Origin 8.1. We observe that Custom Authorities at Kolkata vide its let....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g authority, to all the 16 Bills of Entry, is not legally tenable. 8.5. We observe that the adjudicating authority had chosen not to give inspection of the email. Thus, we also observe that the letter dated June 2, 2023 number BAN/COM/206/1/2022 could not have relied upon as it was a photocopy and was not addressed to any authority. At the bottom of the letter name of one Dharmendra Singh, Embassy of India, Bangkok is mentioned but he is not the addressee of the letter. Thus, we find that this letter does not have any evidentiary value in the fact and circumstances of the case. 8.6. We also observe that there is no document of revocation of the four certificates either addressed to the exporter or the importer. to whom it would have been issued had it been actually issued or had it been part of a formal communication. There is no authenticity of certification by any Authority of Thailand for attestation as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay versus East Punjab Traders reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.). 8.7. We observe that apart from the three letters, there is no material in the Show Cause Notice, suggest....