9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 778317 both dated 11.2.2011 for the clearance of goods declared as "steaming (non-coking) coal" in bulk. The bills of entry were provisionally assessed since the quantity of bulk cargo has to be verified. The goods were classified under CTH 2701.1920 and assessed to 5% basic customs duty in terms of Customs Notification No. 21/2002 Sl. No. 70. The provisional assessment was finalized on 23.3.2011. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) claiming the benefit of concessional rate of BCD at 3% in terms of Notification No. 153/2009 as amended by Customs Notification No. 135/2010 under the ASEAN FTA Preferential Tariff Agreement. The Appellate Commissioner vide his order dated 25.8.2011 pointed out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.02.2011 Date of country-of-origin certificate 3. 11.02.2011 Date of Bill of Entry 4. 15.02.2011 IGM date/date of arrival of vessel 5. 15.02.2011 Provisional assessment of Bill of Entry - pending draft survey report and test report 6. 01.03.2011 Date of submission of COO by the appellant 7. 23.03.2011 Bill of Entry finally assessed without extending FTA benefit under Customs Notification No. 153/2009 8. 25.08.2011 Commissioner Appeal Order (542 - 546/2011) dated 25.8.2011 - order passed assessment order-assessment annulled and denovo for issue of speaking order 9. 23.11.2011 Amended COO was produced before the Group DC 10. 10.01.2012 Order in Original No. 18117/2012 rejecting COO (country ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such signature is available on amended certificate of origin. c. That authenticity of COO is doubtful, hence not accepted. 4. Having heard the rival contentions, perusing the record and after going through the relevant case law relied upon by the parties, we find that the Order in Original has merged with the impugned order which records the reason for rejection of the appeals below; "I have carefully gone through the facts of the case. No erasures or superimpositions shall be allowed on the AIFTA Certificate of Origin. Any alteration shall be made by striking out the errors and making any required corrections. Such alterations and corrections shall be approved and certified by an official of the Issuing Authority authorized to sign th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... public of India) Rules 2009. 6. It is felt that denying substantial benefits only for technical errors would not do justice to the appellant. While the authenticity of COO is doubted by revenue on this score, nothing concrete has been mentioned in the impugned order to justify the doubt, except for the correction made and the date of the COO certificate being after the date of shipment. Doubt is not a substitute for proof. There is no other taint on the validity of the certificate. The procedure mentioned in the Rules to check any doubt regarding the COO certificate was not followed. We find that Constitutional Courts have held the doctrine of substantial compliance to be a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
