Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 398 - AT - CustomsPreferential rate of duty - import of Gold jewellery - N/N. 46/2011-cus dt. 01/06/2011 as amended read with N/N. 189/2009-Cus(NT) dt. 31/12/2009 - The assessing officer denied the exemption holding that the impugned gold jewellery do not qualify as "originating goods" in terms of Rule 4 of Customs Tariff (Determination of origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Government of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nationas (ASEAN) and the Republic of India) Rules, 2009 - The bone of contention of the Revenue in this case is regarding the non-maintenance of records by the supplier M/s. PT. Antam. It is also the Revenue's case that they sought retroactive check as per Rule 16 of the said Rules which communicated that the supplier M/s. PT. Antam has not maintained any acceptable inventory records to ascertain the origin of gold used for manufacturing of imported jewellery - whether respondent herein is eligible for preferential rate of duty in terms of Notification No.46/2011-cus dt. 01/06/2011 as amended read with Notification No.189/2009-Cus(NT) dt. 31/12/2009 for import of gold jewellery of 5.0244 kgs. or otherwise? Held that: - the adjudicating authority, as rightly held by the first appellate authority, cannot go beyond the provisions of notifications and come to a conclusion based upon an assumption and presumption that the gold mined by the exporting country could not have been used by the supplier / manufacturer for producing the imported gold jewellery. The first appellate authority was correct in recording that notification provides for detailed verification process in case of reasonable doubt. It is on record, as stated by the Departmental representative that verification report received from the Indonesian authorities were inconsistent with each other, but there is no denial as to the fact that the said verification report clearly indicates that all the documents with imported consignments were genuine. In the absence of any suspicion on documents, the adjudicating authority could not have gone beyond the provisions of notifications. This kind of preferential trade agreement between the member state of ASEAN and the Republic of India is a reciprocal arrangement between the countries in order to facilitate free movement of trade, will be hampered if the exemption sought under the said Rules is denied on some pretext which are based on assumptions and presumptions and is uncalled for and would render the entire exemption notification otiose, more so when on the face of the records the documents like certificate of origin is not disputed. Benefit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|