TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds availing exemption on the basis of Country of Origin certificate vide Notification No. 99/2011 dated: 09.11.2011. The value was declared as per the overseas supplier's M/S. Tusher International invoice, who is also a manufacturer of the same. The details are as below: Item No. Description of Goods CTH Quantity (Pcs. ) Unit Pric e (US D) Amount (CF) (USD) Assessable Value (CIF) (In Rs.) Assessed Duty (Rs.) 1 Trouser (Men's) (Surplus Quality) 620349 3.90 3194 6 0.7 1 22681. 66 1696178. 48 84808. 90 2 Short Paint (Men's) (Surplus Quality) 620349 90 5490 0.3 3 1811.7 0 135482.4 4 6774.1 0 3 Sweater (Surplus Quality) 611011 90 506 0.5 0 253 18919.83 946.00 4 Jacket (Boy's) (Surplus Quality) 620333 00 1404 0.6 1 856.44 64046.24 3202.3 0 5 T-Shirt (Surplus Quality) 610990 90 1986 0.2 0 397.20 29703.39 1485.2 0 Total 4133 2 26000 1944330. 38 97216. 50 2.1. However, goods were intercepted on the basis of some information of smuggling and 100% examination was conducted. But, nothing incrementing was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty along with interest, redemption fine and penalty, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The Appellant submits that there was no misdeclaration of goods imported. On examination of the goods, no concealment or mis-declaration was found as reproduced in para-3 of the O-I-O, except most of the goods were found to be branded goods. Besides, as per the finding of the Adjudicating authority, in para-9 of the order, since none of the brands found on the goods in the impugned import consignment, was found to be registered with Customs under the IPR Rules, 2007, as per ICEs system, the question of infringement of Intellectual Property does not arise. However, in para-13.4 of the impugned order, it was held that, as per the test report, Trouser (Men), Short Pant (Men), Sweater, Jacket (Boys) and T-Shirt imported vide the Bill of Entry no. 4287258 dated: 12.06.2021, which were claimed classification UTH 62034990, 62034990, 61101190, 62033300 & 61099090 were found re-classifiable UTH 62034290, 62034290, 61103010, 62033300 & 61091000, hence the benefit of Country of Origin certificate may not be extendable in light of the Notification No. 81/2020-Cus (N.T.) dated: 21.08.2020 referred as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....08.2020 or the Rules of origin does not provide any such clause to deny the benefit of Country of origin, due to mismatch in classification at 6 digit level of HS code, when, the COO of the goods is in not in dispute. Hence, the Appellant submits that the allegation brought in the order by the adjudicating authority, denying the benefit of COO is legally not maintainable and liable to be set aside. 3.4. Regarding the re-determination of value of the goods, the Appellant submits that the declared value has been disputed on the basis of NIDB data only, on the basis of description without going into the quality of the fabric, etc. For branded goods, evidences has been relied upon without considering whether these are counterfeits of fake products. By giving the simple name of a brand does not entitled to become the goods counterfeit or branded goods but the value enhancement has been proposed on a hypothetical basis relying on the NIDB data. There is no iota of doubt that the declared value is the true transaction value and the invoice is genuine and of a manufacturer/supplier, contrary to which no evidence has been brought out to reject the invoice as fake or fabricated. Moreover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jacket 6203399 0 6203330 0 6203330 0 6.2. From the above table, we find that there is no mis-declaration found on the description of the goods. The supplier in the exporting country has mentioned the classification under a particular heading (six digit code) whereas, the department has claimed that the said goods are classifiable under a different chapter heading (six digit code). We observe that even if it is considered as a mismatch, this would not dis-entitle the Appellant from the benefit available on the basis of country of origin, as there was no dispute regarding the country of origin of the goods. We also find that, even if the goods are re-classifiable under a different Tariff heading as alleged by the Department, the proposed heading also remains well covered within the benefit of the COO certificate and the concerned Notification No. 99/2011-Cus dated: 09.11.2011. The Notification did not allow the benefit only to the items classifiable under heading 2203 to 2203, CTH 220710, CTH 2208 & Chapter 24, but the repurposed headings UTH 62034290, 62034290, 61103010, 62033300 & 61091000, instead of headings claimed under Tariff 62034990, 62034990, 61101190, 62033....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation on the basis of Country of origin, as claimed by them. 6.5. Further, in Article 14 of the Rules of Determination of origin of goods under the agreement on South Asean Free Trade Area (SAFTA), it has been mentioned that minor discrepancies, if any, between the statement made in the certificate of origin and those made in the documents submitted to the customs authorities shall not ipso-facto invalidate the certificate of origin. Further, the amended provision of Section 28DA, the condition of the Customs (Administration of Rules of origin under Trade Agreement Rule, 2020, framed under Section 28DA, published by (CAROTAR), Notification No. 81/2020 - Cus (N.T.) dated: 21.08.2020 or the Rules of origin does not provide any such clause to deny the benefit of Country of origin, due to mismatch in classification at 6 digit level of HS code, when, the COO of the goods is in not in dispute. 6.6. This view is supported by the decision in the case of CC, Chennai Vs. K B Autosys India Pvt. Ltd, reported in (2025) 28 Centax 438 (Tri-Mad.), where in para-16.6, the Tribunal has held as under: "16 .6 It is important to note that the benefit of Country-of-Origin Certificate can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority, in para-9 of the order, some of the goods were found to be branded goods. However, he has categorically observed that none of the brands found on the goods in the impugned import consignment, were registered with Customs under the IPR Rules, 2007, as per ICEs system. Thus, the Ld. Adjudicating authority has concluded that the question of infringement of Intellectual Property does not arise. However, we find that the Ld. Adjudicating authority has adopted the price of 'branded goods' of similar brands, without any basis. In this regard, we observe that once it is concluded that there was no infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, the impugned goods cannot be considered as goods similar to branded goods of the same brand. 7.1. We find that the declared value has been disputed on the basis of NIDB data only, on the basis of description without going into the quality of the fabric, etc. For branded goods, we find that there was no investigation carried out to ascertain whether these goods are counterfeits of fake products. By giving the simple name of a brand does not entitle it to become the counterfeit good or branded goods. Thus, we observe that the value enhanc....