9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Oil Company LLC, Dubai UAE at a unit price of $ 60.11/MT and $59.92/MT respectively and the goods were declared to be of Indonesian origin. 1.2 At the time of filing the Bills of Entry, the appellant claimed 5% Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Customs Notification No. 21/2002 (Sl.No. 17) and exemption of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Customs Notification No. 20/2006 (Sl.No. 2). Since the imported goods are in bulk in order to verify the exact quantity pending draft survey report, the Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally. 1.3 Later, the appellant vide letter dated 24.11.2011 claimed the benefit of 4% Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Customs Notification No. 153/2009 (Sl.No. 197) (as amended) by submitting a copy of the Countr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-contracted for supply of goods to the Indonesian supplier. There is no dispute that the goods are of Indonesian origin. The authorities below have rejected the benefit of Preferential Trade Agreement alleging that the supplier's name and invoice number in Country of Origin Certificate are different from the actual supplier name and invoice number. 2.2 The Ld. counsel adverted to Annexure III under Rule 13 prescribing operational certification procedures for Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods) Rules, 2009 of ASEAN Preferential Trade Agreement at paragraph 22 which states that the sales invoice can be either issued by a company located in a third country or an AIFTA exporter. The relevant para reads as under:- "22. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his is because a single invoice has been split into two for the sake of convenience of the quantity. It is prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 3.1 The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri R. Rajaramanan appeared and argued for the Department. The Ld. AR adverted to the discussions made by the original authority in Paragraph 7 of the order. The discrepancies noted by the original authority are as under:- Bill of Entry No. 701093 dated 26.11.2010 (COO No. 170/KBL/2011) Invoice No. in COO Invoice No. in import invoice Supplier Name in COO Supplier Name in Invoice KJA-2010-703 CNO/10-11/70A PT.Kideco Jaya Agung Coal & Oil Company LLC Bill of Entry No. 747346 dated 12.01.2011 (COO No. 005/KBL/2011) Invoice No. in COO Invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the goods exported and for issuing the Country of Origin Certificate respectively. These discrepancies do not have any bearing to the benefit under the Preferential Trade Agreement. The Ld. counsel has been able to give plausible explanation for the minor difference in the invoice numbers. We therefore find that the rejection of the benefit on the second ground also cannot sustain and requires to be set aside.
6. From the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order rejecting the benefit of concessional rate of duty as per the Preferential Trade Agreement is not justified. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
( Order dictated and pronounced in open court ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
