TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity of the Government of Thailand 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 16 Bills of Entry by presenting 16 country of origin certificates. 3. Later, after about 2 years, the Custom Authorities at Kolkata vide their letter dated 27th April 2023 referred the matter to Director International, Custom Division, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, North Block, New Delhi for verification of certificates of Country of Origin in respect of seven importers who had imported the goods from Asian Import and Export Limited and Maptresco of Thailand respectively. 3.1. Another letter which is relied upon in the Show Cause Notice is the copy of the letter dated November 6, 2023 responding to the letter dated April 20,2023. It has been mentioned that a verification report number 0307.07153 dated October 30, 2023 was forwarded by the Embassy of India, Thailand vide email dated October 30, 2023 qua 4 COOs mentioned in annexure A said to be issued from Thailand.. 3.2. On the basis of the letters received from the Embassy of Thailand, the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....023. It has been mentioned therein that a verification report number 0307.07153 dated October 30, 2023 was forwarded by the Embassy of India, Thailand vide email dated October 30, 2023 qua 4 COOs mentioned in annexure A said to have been issued from Thailand. However, the appellant submits that there is no letter containing the list of 4 COOs. It is also the appellant's contention that the annexure A to the said letter is also dated 6th November 2023, which would mean that the annexure A was not part of the communication sent from Thailand, which is dated October 30, 2023 . 5.2. The appellant further submits that the email which has been referred to in the letter dated November 6, 2023 has reference to three COOs and the letter bearing number BAN/COM/206/1/2022 dated 2nd June, 2023, was requesting verification of genuineness of four forms AI exported by Asian Import and Export Company Limited and hence the same cannot be related to the appellant's COOs; it has been mentioned in the email that all the four certificates were validly issued by the Department of Foreign Trade but since the Department was not in a position to verify that goods covered by the above mentioned four form....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and it 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, the appellant submits that the letter does not have any evidentiary value in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.6. 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 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.). 5.7. The appellant submits that apart from the three letters, there is no material in the Show Cause Notice, suggesting revocation of the certificate of origin or making of retroactive check also; there is also no document enclosed in the notice issued by any designated authority of India in this regard. They point out that under the treaty, the process of verification o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k, New Delhi for verification of certificates of Country of Origin in respect of seven importers who had imported the goods from Asian Import and Export Limited and Maptresco of Thailand respectively. We observe that another letter which is relied upon in the Show Cause Notice is the copy of the letter dated 6th November, 2023 responding to the letter dated 20th April, 2023. It has been mentioned that a verification report number 0307.07153 dated 30th October, 2023 was forwarded by the Embassy of India, Thailand vide email dated October 30, 2023 qua 4 COOs mentioned in annexure A said to be issued from Thailand. However, we observe that there is no letter containing a list of 4 COOs. The annexure A to the said letter is also dated 6th November, 2023, which would mean that the Annexure A was not part of the communication sent from Thailand which is dated 30th October, 2023. 8.2. We observe that that the appellant were able to procure the communication sent by Thailand Government sent to the Indian counterpart qua verification report which was related to 5 COOs and certified to be validly issued and confirmed as per the document number 0313.13 / 893 dated 22nd November 2023, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso no document enclosed in the notice issued by any designated authority of India in this regard. We are of the view that the retroactive check is to be accompanied by certificate of origin and the reasons as to why retroactive check is requested are to be specified. However, we find that there is no such document available in this case. 8.8. It is also settled law that the if certificates at the time of import were valid, then their validity cannot be questioned on the basis of surmises. In this case, the evidences submitted by the investigation does not conclusively prove that the COOs submitted by the appellant were not genuine. On the contrary, the evidences submitted by the appellant indicate that the COOs submitted by the appellant are indeed genuine. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant had rightly availed the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 on 16 Bills of Entry by presenting 16 country of origin certificates. Consequently, we hold that the impugned order passed by rejecting the benefit of the said notification is not sustainable. 9. In view of the above discussions, we hold that there is no evidence available on record to reject the ....