TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificates are conclusive evidence since these are issued by the Designated Committee of Bangladesh i.e. Export Promotion Bureau, and in absence of any material on record to show that these were forged or its genuineness questioned by DRI or Indian Customs, these Country of Origin Certificates should be considered as substantive and conclusive evidence - also there are no evidence on record of any overseas enquiry with the Bangladeshi supplier or confirmation with Bangladesh Customs or Bangladeshi Authority, and therefore the SAFTA Certificate cannot be unilaterally rejected. The past three Bills of Entry, the Proper Officer i.e. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Petrapole LCS had done value loading after due consideration and extended benefit of Exemption Notification on verification of documents like SAFTA Certificates, invoices etc. and thus there are no ingredient of collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts and accordingly the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Act ibid is fit to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal Nos.75528 & 75529 of 2021 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75687-75688/2021 - Dated:- 10-11-2021 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the SAFTA Certificate as compared to the invoice filed by the Appellant in India. Based on the aforesaid discrepancy, the goods were detained and subsequently seized. While investigating, DRI went through EDI system and found a similar discrepancy in respect of past imports of consignments of quilt cover from Bangladesh in the year 2016 vide three Bills of Entry viz. 6671904 dated 09.09.2016, 7700933 dated 09.11.2016 and 7745037 dated 07.12.2016. DRI alleged that the value of fabrics imported from China and supplied free of cost by the Appellant was deliberately not included in the value of the goods at the time of obtaining Certificate of Origin from the Bangladeshi authorities and further if the value of fabric was considered, the content of third country origin would be more than the percentage declared in the Certificate of Origin. All the above three consignments got cleared without payment of Basic Customs Duty by availing benefit of Notification No.99/2011-CUS (supra). Statement of Shri Pramod Nahata, one of the Directors of the Customs Broking Firm, M/s.ERT Shipping Warehousing (P) Ltd., was recorded under Section 108 of the Act on 06.09.2017. On being asked about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e letter dated 16.07.2017 that the Country of Origin Certificate for the live consignment had been sent back to Bangladesh for rectification after the Superintendent of Customs Mr. A.Ghosh pointed out the mistake and this was much before DRI got involved in the case on 19.07.2017/22.07.2017. The learned Advocate further submits that since the Appellant had already sent back the Country of Origin Certificate for rectification much before the intervention of DRI, confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Act is not warranted as it is for contravention of any exemption Notification and the Appellant had no intention to avail any exemption benefit for the live consignment. Learned Advocate further submitted that under instruction and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of his clients, that they are not agitating the duty demand for the live goods under Bill of Entry No.2321708 dated 05.07.2017 and they are only agitating against confiscation and penalty. 6. The learned Advocate further submits that Country of Origin Certificates are substantive and conclusive evidence since these are valid Certificates which have been issued by Designated Authority of Bangladesh i.e. Expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /O No.85727/2020 dtd.11.09.2020-Tri.-Mum)] 7. It is the submission of the learned Advocate for the Appellants that penalty under Section 114A of the Act can be imposed only if duty is short paid due to collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts, which is not the case in the instant Appeal under consideration. He further states that no new documents had been found during investigation and all the relevant documents like invoices, Country of Origin Certificate duly authenticated by the Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry, viz. Export Promotion Bureau, Bangladesh etc. were always available with the Proper Officer. Accordingly, he submits that penalty under Section 114A is not at all warranted on the Appellant importer M/s So-Hum Trading Company. 8. Regarding the penalty under Section 114AA of the Act ibid imposed on the Appellant No.2 Shri Ajay Midha, the Authorized Signatory of Appellant No.1 is unwarranted and uncalled for since it is trite law that penalty cannot be imposed for cases involving Exemption Notification and placed reliance on the Tribunal s Order in the case of Lewek Altair Shipping Pvt.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Vijayawada report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
