TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereas the actual RVC was much less than 35% - valuation of CR SS Flat products - HELD THAT:- In the present disputed matter appellant has claimed the goods to be originating in Malaysia as provided under Rule 5 of the AIFTA Rules i.e. not wholly obtained or produced. In respect of all the subject consignments, the appellant produced certificate of origin in Form A-1 issued by the Ministry of Internal Trade and Industry (MITI) of Government of Malaysia showing the Regional Value content of the subject goods as more than 35% +CTSH . However case of the department is that intelligence gathered by the DRI officers suggested that the said RVC was misstated as the overseas supplier M/s. Bahru did not have integrated stainless steel factory and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU Shri Manish Jain, Shri T Vishwanathan Ms Shruti Khanna Advocates for the Appellant Shri Rajesh K Agarwal, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. MUN-CUSTM-000-COM-14-20-21 dated 30.12.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Mundra, Kutch. 1.1 Brief facts are that intelligence received from DRI indicated that the Appellant and other parties were importing CR SS Flat products viz. Coil/Sheet/ Strip from M/s Bharu Stainless Steel, SDN BHD, Malaysia by availing concessional rare of duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, as amended and Notification 53/2011-Cus. dated 01.07.2011, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted from M/s Bahru. Statements of various persons were recorded by the department. Based on the investigation conducted by the DRI, the show cause notice dated 21.10.2019 were issued to the Appellants proposing therein to deny the benefit of the Exemption Notification on the disputed goods and demanding custom duty. In adjudication, Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order confirmed the customs duty demand and imposed the penalties. Being aggrieved the appellants are before this Tribunal. 2. Shri T. Vishwanathan, Shri Manish Jain Ms, Shruti Khanna, Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that exemption has been correctly availed in terms of the Notification in question and the related Country of Origin Rules. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 (120) ELT 67 2.2 He also submits that the evidence/data relied upon by the DRI does not conclusively lead to the conclusion that the requisite value addition has not been achieved. 2.3 He further submits that the entire demand is barred by limitation. The entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation. The allegation that the exporter has mis-represented the country of export can hardly be a ground to invoke extended period of limitation in the present case. The importer has no role or say in the application made by the exporter in the exporting country before issuing authority. The fact is that exporter here is one of the supplier to the appellant. In identical circumstance, the commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be originating. The Rule 5(1) ibid provides that a product shall be deemed to be originating , if (i) the AIFTA content is not lees than 35% of the FOB value and (ii) the non-originating material have undergone at least a change in tariff sub-heading level i.e. at six digit of the Harmonized System, provided that the final process of the manufacture is performed with the territory of the exporting party. 4.1 We find that in the present disputed matter appellant has claimed the goods to be originating in Malaysia as provided under Rule 5 of the AIFTA Rules i.e. not wholly obtained or produced. In respect of all the subject consignments, the appellant produced certificate of origin in Form A-1 issued by the Ministry of Internal Trade and I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COOs issued by M/s Bharu is not genuine and consequently denied Exemption Notification No. 46/2011, dated 1-6-2011 and consequential demand was confirmed. We find that as per the documents submitted by the appellant it appears that there is no doubt on the authenticity of the country of origin certificate issued and import of the goods by Appellant on the basis of said COOs. 4.3 However, to clear any doubt it is the burden on the department to get the verification from the Malaysia Government regarding authenticity of Certificate of origin which has not been discharged by the department. Therefore, in the interest of justice we give one chance to the department to get the verification from concerned authorities about the genuineness of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
