TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.06.2011. 1.2 Based on the above input, the goods imported under Bill of Entry no. 8606858 dated 16.03.2015 filed at Mundra Port & SEZ, Mundra were examined under Panchnama dated 17.03.2015. and samples were drawn from the containers and sent for testing. 1.3 The DRI, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad vide letter F. No. DRI/AZU/CI/ENQ-09/2015 dated 08.04.2015 requested the Director (International Customs), Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi to cause necessary verification of the COO Certificates, which was eventually responded much later than prescribed 3 months period on 14.10.2016. 1.4 A simultaneous separate inquiry was also initiated by the Customs, ICD Ballabhgad, Faridabad against Noticee No. 1 in respect of the imports at ICD Ballabhgad, vide letter dated 28.12.2015 had also requested the Additional Director (Policy), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi to cause necessary verification and verify the genuineness of the COO Certificates. 1.5 That the CBEC, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India vide letter dated 14.10.2016 informed MITI had concluded that all the referred COO certificates were not authentic and the actual C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that 15 COO Certificates were not authentic and the actual COO Certificates belonged to some other Company; (iii) similarity in pattern and style of the first invoice issued by Malaysian Supplier and last invoice issued by Chinese supplier and (iv) confessional statement dated 03.04.2017 of Varun Goyal, Director. 2.2 Following are the grounds taken by the party: A. Out of 29 certificates of origin only 15 verified and demand confirmed against all. It is an undisputed fact that demands have been confirmed against all of the 29 certificates while only 15 certificates have been verified as per the department's own admission. Even if we accept department version, the demand can be confirmed for only those certificates which have been verified and around half of the demand gets dropped. It is a settled law that demands can be confirmed against only those which have been verified not for those which are not verified. * 2018 (364) E.L.T. 1017 (Tri. - Mumbai) Sunil Traders vs CCE Nhava Sheva Classification - Change of classification for earlier imports - In absence of drawing of any sample from previous consignments for examination, chang....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prudence established by various supreme court judgments that to invoke extended period it has to be established that the appellant importer was involved in said "fraud". * 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) Uniworth Textiles vs CCE Demand - Limitation - Mala fide of noticee - Burden to prove it is on Department, who makes the allegation - Onus to prove bona fide conduct is not on noticee - Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. Demand - Limitation - Fides of conduct of noticee - Specific and explicit averments challenging them are mandatory to invoke extended period under proviso to Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. This single judgement has relied upon atleast 10 supreme court judgments and held to invoke extended period department has to prove that appellant was involved in the so called fraud, without establishing malafide on part of the appellant extended period cannot be invoke. In recent judgement of Hon'ble Cestat Principal Bench New Delhi (2024) 16 Centax 351 (Tri.-Del) Whirlpool of India vs CCE held as under: Recovery - Limitation period - Extension of period - Appellant (importer) purchased Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB) Scrips....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wa & Afloat have been regularly distinguished by Hon'ble Cestat in number of cases which is also distinguishable in the impugned matter. Since the whole demand is barred by limitation the whole demand including the penalties is liable to be dropped. C. On Merits of the Case a) Samples were drawn from the consignment on 17.03.2015 and sent for testing till date nothing reported about the test results. (RUD 1 attached). b) Question 2 & 3 of RUD 11 clearly shows even after availing exemption if goods are of China origin the price paid by the appellant will be higher so importing goods via Malaysia of chinese origin does not make sense, the only reason of importing goods from Malaysia was the quality of goods. The fact has been pointed out by the department only. c) Rule 7 (c)of 189/2009 clearly mentions if Certificate of Origin is not accepted same shall be returned to issuing authority within reasonable period not exceeding 2 months which clearly has not been done (letter issued after more than 1 yr). d) Rule 7 (d) of 189/2009 the issuing authority will provide detailed exhaustive explanation addressing grounds raised by importing auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eover extended period demand was raised when there was not a shred of evidence available against the appellants. The demands may be set aside and the amount deposited during investigation may be refunded. 3. The department on the other side in rebuttal put forth the following:- 3.1 M/s. Imperial Fibres Pvt. Ltd (Importer) was engaged in import and trading of "Polyester Knitted Fabrics" falling under CTH 60053200 at Mundra Port and ICD Patparganj. Based on inputs that the importer was mis-declaring the Country of Origin of the imported goods as 'Malaysia' instead of 'China' to wrongly avail the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 8606858 dated 16.03.2015 at Mundra Port were examined under Panchnama dated 17.03.2015. Search was also conducted at the office premises of the importer at Delhi. 3.2 During the course of investigations in the matter, it was found that: (i) There was a significant mis-match in the signature of Shri Ananda Raj A/L Punjawaley (Authorised Signatory of MITI) appearing on all the manipulated /fabricated Country of Origin (COO) Certificates when compared with his Specime....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the remaining COO Certificates was not sought by DRI. Keeping in view the significant mis-match in the signature of Mr. Ananda Raj A/L Punjawaley (authorized signatory of MITI) when compared to the officially available specimen signature in all the available COO Certificates, it was established that the same had been fabricated and so, the Adjudicating Authority found that duty demand in respect of the remaining 14 consignments was not merely based on assumption and presumption but backed by material evidence on record. 3.4 Further, with regard to the importer's submission that there was no reference to any COO Certificate in respect of Bill of Entry No. 6106734 dated 15.07.2014, on seeking clarification, DRI vide their letter dated 09.10.2018 informed that with regard to the subject B/E, the COO Certificate was not available in the document received from Customs, ICD Ballabgarh, Faridabad. DRI had also tried to obtain the import documents from HDFC Bank, New Delhi where the import documents had been submitted by the importer but the said COO Certificate could not be provided by them too The Adjudicating Authority observed that till June 2014, the importer was importing goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... found that it had been categorically reported by MITI that the said 15 COO Certificates were not authentic, which obviously means that the same are fake / fabricated and no further clarification is required so as to identify the "other company" as mentioned in the verification report. 3.8 Further, with regard to the contention that the confessional statement dated 03.04.2017 of Shri Varun Goyal, Director, the Adjudicating Authority found that the statement recorded before Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible as evidence. The allegation made by the noticees at the stage of adjudication was just an afterthought and cannot be given cognizance. In this regard, the Adjudicating Authority placed reliance on the following judgements: (i) Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Romesh Chandra Mehta vs State of West Bengal 1999 (110) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) (ii) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Percy Rustomji Basta vs State of Maharashtra-1983 (13) E.L.T. 1443 (S.C.) (iii) Judgement of Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of Rajesh Tarachand Sajdeh vs Collector of Customs, Bombay 1983 (12)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....part of the Director had rendered the subject imported goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and 111(0) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Shri Varun Goyal, Director liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. Further, he had knowingly and intentionally made, signed or caused to be made, signed and fabricated documents which were knowingly presented to the Customs authorities for which he was liable for penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The AR relied on following case laws: * CC (Prev) vs Afloat Textiles (I) P. Ltd. 2009 (235) ELT 587 (SC) * Friends Trading CO. vs UOI 2011 (267) ELT 33 (P&H) * Munjal Showa Ltd. 2022 (382) ELT 145 (SC) * Nemichand Desarlla 2025 (26) Centax 433 (Mad.) * Conybio Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (1) Centax 97 (Mad.) * Star Industries vs CC (Imports) 2015 (324) ELT 656 (SC) * CC-Madras vs D. Bhoormull 1983 (13) ELT 1546 (SC) * Trafigura India Pvt Ltd. 2023-TIOL-737-HC-AHM-CUS 4. As per time granted to either side to make further submission, in a time bound manner, the advocate for the appellant submitted as follows: I. That the department has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clarification addressing the grounds for denial of preferential tariff treatment raised by the importing party and the Customs Authority of the importing party shall accept the Certificate of Origin and grant the preferential tariff treatment if the clarification is found satisfactory. VIII. That therefore, unlike Trafigura, the present case concerns not an omitted provision, but express domestic rules which the department was bound to follow. The department cannot rely upon Trafigura to avoid compliance with Rule 7(c) and Rule 7(d), because that would amount to extending the judgment far beyond the issue it actually decided. IX. That the department appears to rely upon Rule 23 relating to fraudulent acts in connection with the AIFTA Certificate of Origin in order to contend that in cases of alleged fraud there is no necessity to comply with Rule 7(c) and Rule 7(d). Such interpretation is wholly untenable. X. That Rule 23 merely provides that where fraudulent acts are suspected, the relevant governmental authorities shall cooperate in any action taken against the persons involved and each party shall be responsible for providing legal sanctions against f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he actual certificates belonged to another company. Such a bare remark may at best be the starting point of investigation but cannot be treated as the end of the inquiry, particularly when Rule 7(d) requires detailed and exhaustive clarification on the precise grounds raised by the importing authority. XVII. That in the present case there is no comparable factual finding that the appellant had conscious knowledge of any alleged falsity in the Certificate of Origin or was party to the alleged fraud. Therefore, the findings in Trafigura regarding suppression and invocation of the extended period under section 28(4) cannot be readily applied to the present matter. XVIII. That Trafigura was a case where the Court found on facts that the importers had wrongly availed exemption on the basis of misrepresented Regional Value Content. The present case, on the other hand, concerns failure to follow incorporated procedural rules, incomplete verification, absence of crucial evidentiary material, and lack of proof of conscious involvement of the importer. XIX. That therefore the judgment in Trafigura is clearly distinguishable both in law and on facts. It cannot be ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of Customs Act. We being mindful of the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat (being our jurisdictional court) approach the facts and legality in this matter. We find that we are concerned in this particular case with Rule 7 of Determination of Origin of Goods (under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Government of Member of States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India) Rules 2009 brought in force vide notification No. 189/2009-Cus (NT), the relevant rules read as follows:- "7. Issuance of aifta certificate of origin (a) The AIFTA Certificate of Origin shall be in International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) A4 size, and white paper in conformity with the specimen as in the Attachment to these Operational Certification Procedures. It shall be made in English. The AIFTA Certificate of Origin shall comprise one (1) original and three (3) copies. Each AIFTA Certificate of Origin shall bear a reference number as given separately by each place or office of issuance. (b) The original copy shall be forwarded, together with the triplicate, by the exporter to the importer. Only the original c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the header "Action against Fraudulent Acts", reproduced below: "23(a) when it is suspected that fraudulent acts in connection with the AIFTA Certificate of Origin have been committed, the relevant Government Authorities concerned shall co-operate in any action taken against the persons involved. (b) Each party shall be responsible for providing legal sanctions against fraudulent acts related to the AIFTA Certificate of Origin." 5.3 It is clear that mandate in this rule is in relation to conduct between two member countries who are party to the agreement i.e. Malaysia & India in this instance once the fraudulent acts in connection with AIFTA Certificate of Origin are established. The Rule 23 in no way lays down that once a fraud is suspected by a member country all the procedural obligations as are contained in other Rules and origins of procedure can be ignored and set to rest. In fact it is through the process of the following of the Rules that the fraudulent act has to be established. We find that as provided in Rule 23(a) & (b), it has not been shown that Malaysian Government has taken action against parties involved in suspected fraudulent action, or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cate are different from the specimen signature in the custody of Revenue Department and that bare open eyes comparison by a non-expert on signature has been done. Appellants seek to place reliance on the ruling of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of CC-Imports vs Flamingo (DFS) Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (251) ELT 348 (MAD), wherein it has mentioned that any portion in signature can only be undertaken by technical experts. Same has not been done in this case nor are the signature being denied by the Malaysian Authority in its verification report only it states that same were issued to someone else. We also find that in 14 of the certificates bearing signatures were not sent to the issuing authority. The explanation by the department for not undertaking this statutory obligation are far from consulting. We, therefore, find that the verification process in totality has not been followed and there has been inordinate delay in obtaining the certificate and for conducting retroactive check for considering validity of certificate. In the matter of Mahadev Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. vs UOI 2016 (331) ELT 424 (A.P.) dealing with the same rules, the Hon'ble H.C. of A.P., in para 24, 25, 26 and 27, dealt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... terms of Rule 7(c) of the Rules is only two months. 26. In the present case, the bill of entry was filed on 23-6-2015 and time within which the Customs authorities could have refused the certificate and commenced the request for retroactive check would be 22-8-2015. 27. The question of conducting a retroactive check even assuming that there is no requirement of rejection (in fact there is no rejection of the certificate of origin in the present case), but there being a doubt that is required to be verified into, the same ought to have been commenced as soon as the bill of entry was presented or within a reasonable time of presentation of the bill of entry. Whereas in the present case to a specified query that was put by the Court to the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted, on instructions, that as on date the only action which has been taken by the authorities are the letters written by the 3rd respondent to the Commissioner and who in turn addressed a letter to the Director, International Customs Division, seeking an enquiry to be conducted. In other words even as on today, there are no steps which have been taken in terms of Rule 16(a) for the purpos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d tin ingots from Malaysia manufactured by M/s Malaysia Smelting Corporation (MSC), Malaysia. Therefore, it appears that the importer noticee is required to pay the effective rate of duty of Customs on the import of tin ingots in place of the preferential rate of duty of Customs as availed by them at the time of import of the consignment of tin ingots, along with interest thereon. 11. Whereas in terms of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, an importer noticee entering any imported goods under Section 46 through a Bill Entry shall save as otherwise provided in Section 85, self-assess the duty, if any, leviable on such goods. In the instant case, the importer noticee failed to assess 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 pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant in the issuance of the improper COO Certificate. Loose and unspecific allegations that the investigations found out that suppliers/traders, supplied free of cost raw material (tin ore) of origin of non-ASEAN countries to MSC (the Malaysian exporter) for smelting and conversion to tin ingots and that the smelting charges paid by traders/suppliers for conversion reflected the true value addition(RVC) in Malaysia which in percentage terms of total FOB value did not meet the origin criteria for goods of Malaysian origin under the ASEAN Rules of Origin. That being the basis for issuance of COO Certificate, however nowhere points out the manner in which the appellant may have played any/active role in getting 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 Ni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns any such allegation and proof of any of the ingredients of collusion, or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer, put to the notice of the importer, recourse to the said provisions of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be taken by the Revenue to demand the duty foregone consequent to the utilisation of the transferred DFIA licence by the appellant. 18. Our aforesaid view stands fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the decision in Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Vallabh Design Products, 2007 (219) ELT 73 (P & H), wherein it has been held as under: "9. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal is devoid of any merit. The assessee-respondent admittedly is not a party to the fraud. There are categorical finding that it had purchased DEPB from the open market in the bona fide belief of its being genuine. The assessee-respondent had paid full price and accordingly had availed the benefit. 10. It is also worth noticing that the assessee-respondent was issued a show cause notice dated 10-6-2002 (P-2) before cancelling the DEPB, whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duties by such person or his agent. There is no such averment to be found in the show cause notice. There is no averment that the duty of excise had been intentionally evaded or that fraud or collusion had been practiced or that the assessee was guilty of wilful misstatement or suppression of fact. In the absence of any such averments in the show-cause notice it is difficult to understand how the Revenue could sustain the notice under the proviso to Section 11-A(1) of the Act.' It was held that the show cause notice must put the assessee to notice which of the various omissions or commissions stated in the proviso is committed to extend the period from six months to five years. That unless the assessee is put to notice the assessee would have no opportunity to meet the case of the Department. It was held : ...There is considerable force in this contention. If the department proposes to invoke the proviso to Section 11-A(1), the show-cause notice must put the assessee to notice which of the various commissions or omissions stated in the proviso is committed to extend the period from six months to 5 years. Unless the assessee is put to notice, the assessee would hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to the petitioners with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of recovery till actual refund. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute. No costs." 5.7 It is further seen that the various statements were recorded from time to time of the appellant. The statement dated 07.05.2015 was not culpatory and the appellant stated that the transaction was genuine and same was maintained in his statement dated 09.03.2016, 19.09.2016, 09.11.2016 and 03.04.2017 however, when being confronted with the signatures of Shri Anand Raj issuing officer of the certificate that the specimen certificate available with the department for the second time, while recording all statements he stated that the signatures appeared to be different (which is an opinion, even not of expert). It is therefore, concluded by us that statement are not culpatory and in the last statement dated 03.04.2017, the appellant expressing his opinion and not as an handwriting expert stating something cannot be taken to be a culpatory statement about the underlying transaction specially, when he has been maintaining about the payment having been made to the Malaysian supplier and has expla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The department through the First Secretary (Trade), Embassy of India, Brussels had obtained a report of the Belgium Customs Authorities along with its enclosures. We note that the enclosure contains a proforma invoice dated 15-4-2003 issued by M/s. Huron Valley Europe NV on M/s. Ni-Met, New York and the document is in Dutch. It is a document of a sales transaction of a European Company selling goods to an American Company in which Appellant is not involved. The same goods has been sold to the Appellant by Ni-Met under a separate independent business transaction, hence the aforesaid report cannot be applied to present import. In any we observe that supplier i.e. M/s. Ni-met had subsequently issued a specific letter stating that the goods have been sold to the Appellant at a much lower price than the price that it was purchased and the contents of the said letter have not been disputed in the order. Hence, the aforesaid report cannot be relied upon. 29. It was held in Chandra Impex P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs New Delhi 2008 (224) ELT 583 (Tri-Del) that 23. Before us there was a contention that the documents recorded by the Revenue had not been authenticated as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Appeals). A perusal of the order would show that the importer-respondent had claimed that they paid only 10,000 Euros and there was no advance payment of any amount in Euros currency as mentioned in the invoice produced and relied by the Customs Department. It has been found that there was no investigation regarding the actual payment in respect of the transaction. The Tribunal has also pointed out glaring discrepancy in the document relied upon by the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has specifically mentioned that the invoice relied upon by the appellant to show the price as 19,000 Euros was not a signed invoice and could not have been relied upon. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority. In fact there was no evidence sustainable in law to Initiate proceedings against the importer-respondent. The view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been accepted by the Tribunal and we find no ground to interfere in the same as these are pure findings of fact. It is thus patent that no question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise for adjudication of this Court. Accordingl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs, supra, besides the fact of source of obtaining the document, has held that the presumption under Section 139(II) of the Customs Act cannot be raised because the document did not bear any signature. The Court has held as under: "In order to raise the Presumption under the said Provision; the basic facts had to be laid. Even though they bear a serial number and stamp of Japan Customs, the fact remains that they are copies of copies and indisputably bear no signatures of the exporter, the forwarding agent, the stevedore or the Customs Officer, no signature at all or any of them." In the present matters also, the documents are unsigned. The Revenue, after finding in Order-in-Original No. 19/2003 that the contemporaneous evidences are equally tilted on both the sides, cannot disregard the transaction value. In the case of Ramkhazana Electronic relied upon by the learned Senior Departmental Representative, the judgment of the Apex Court in East Punjab Traders regarding unsigned nature of the document was not cited before the Tribunal. In Diary Den case, the photocopies of the documents had been attested by the customs officer who signed the report of the Italian Customs wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relied upon various judgments of the Tribunal on this issue. 33. Further, we find that Tribunal has been consistently holding that in the absence of verification from the country of declared origin, the allegation of misdeclaration of country of origin does not survive. We find that Allahabad Bench of the tribunal, had an occasion to go into a case, having similar facts involving import of dry dates allegedly from Pakistan and mis declaring the country of origin and the issue of Phytosanitary Certificates. The Bench held in the case of M/s Shakti Traders, vide final order No. 70548-70553/2024 dated 30-8-2024, that 4.5 Before we further take up the matter for discussion, we are constrained on plain reading of the impugned order that the same has been passed with a pre conceived mind, without application of judicial mind to the facts and law in the matter. Impugned order records in respect of an affidavit filed by the revenue in case of M/s Raghunath Laxminarayan Agarwal, in writ petition No 11283 M/B of 20202 challenging the seizure made (still pending in High Court) stating as follows: "5. Further enquiry regarding genuineness of the Certificate of Origin submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....01.2024} 35. We further find that Allahabad Bench, relying on the need to follow the procedure under Rule 6 of the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020, also held in the case of in case of Omega Pack well [Final Order No 70331- 70336/2024 dated 07.06.2024] that "17. On the issue of country of origin, we find that in all documents viz., invoice, country of origin certificate, phytosanitary certificate etc. country of origin of dry dates in present case was shown UAE. Slips tagged with bags of dry dates were showing country of origin of the goods UAE. No enquiry was conducted by the Department to prove that country of origin certificate duly issued by the Competent Authority of the exporting country was fake. As per the country-of-origin certificate, the same was issued by Ajman Chamber of commerce after verification of goods. At Sl.No.12 of the certificate, it has been certified by the Competent Authority of Ajman Chamber of Commerce, UAE that evidences produced before them satisfy that the said goods originate in the country shown in the certificate which is UAE in the present case. It shows that the said certificate was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued in favour of the Appellant. So long as the certificate is not cancelled, the respondents could not, in our opinion, have initiated seizure proceedings in the case on hand. Petitioner-appellant was sent only a questionnaire and the said questionnaire has been answered by the appellant herein. No further action has been taken by the respondents. The Director General of Health Services has also not issued any cancellation of certificate as on date. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the view that without withdrawing or cancelling the certificate already issued, the present seizure cannot stand. Therefore, we hold that the seizure effected by the respondents is not in accordance with law. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge, in these circumstances, requires to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside." The Tribunal in the case of Alfakrina Exports vide Final Order No.11759/2023 dated 23.08.2023(Tri-Ahmd) on the issue of nonacceptability of Country-of-Origin Certificate for deciding origin of goods held that the Certificate of country of origin cannot be discarded without checking its authenticity and benefit if any cannot be denied. In view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rintout from the website of dpwdt.dubaitrade.ae/ Export which is not stamped or signed. Even the copy of letter by which the customs officer posted abroad is claimed to have sent the report was also not provided to the appellants. The financial trail to prove that the sale proceeds were sent to the Pakistani exporters or supplier, is not established. In the instant case, we find that the documents are not authenticated. We are not able to appreciate that the photo copies forwarded by the officer posted in Dubai can be treated as evidence to establish the allegation against the appellants. 39. Coming to the issue of seizure/confiscation of goods imported by the appellants, we find that the goods imported and not cleared by the appellants were seized. Also, the goods already cleared by the Customs were proposed to be confiscated. The proposal for seizure and confiscation was on two counts, one, the alleged misdeclaration of country of origin and the absence of phytosanitary certificates in respect of the imported consignments. In view of the facts of the case and the decision of tribunal in identical cases, we are of the considered opinion that seizure/confiscation on accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that in the appeals filed by M/s Findoc Impex and M/s TRB International, penalty under Section 112 was not proposed against the appellants. Learned Commissioner, however, has imposed penalties under Section 112 which is beyond the purview of the show cause notices. To our considered opinion, the same is not permissible." 5.8 We find that the evidence adduced by the department fails to establish that there was any fraud committed. At the most it arouses suspicion for investigation. Again, there has not been any culpatory statement indicating mis-declaration by the appellant, the extended period u/s 28(4), therefore, in any case, cannot be invoked nor can benefit of a beneficial exemption denied on the basis of such delayed and lacking in credence verification of goods, which were cleared by the proper officer. The extended period is not invokable in view of the decided case law and the position of the statements. There has been undue delay in conducting verification and that too has been done belatedly, only in respect of 15 out of 29 certificates of origin, even the process adopted and the report is not as per the process of seeking information from any foreign agency of foreig....