Legal principle

A Certificate of Origin issued by the competent certifying authority of the exporting country cannot be unilaterally rejected merely because the goods lack marks and numbers on the packages; customs must follow the prescribed retroactive-check procedure under the notified Rules of Origin, and absent fraud or forgery such minor discrepancies do not invalidate the certificate.

Court decision

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the Order-in-Appeal, holding that the denial of the concessional duty benefit was unsustainable because the customs authorities rejected the Certificate of Origin summarily without following the procedure prescribed in Notification No. 59/2005-Cus (N.T.) and its Annexure A (Rules 18, 15 and 21 of the Rules of Origin), and without any finding that the certificate was forged or fraudulently obtained; the appellant was held entitled to the concessional benefit with consequential relief.

Facts

M/s. Blow Plast Industries, Chennai imported HDPE granules (High Density Polyethylene) valued at USD 35,520 CIF from M/s. Eveready Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., Singapore, vide Bill of Entry dated 24.10.2015, claiming concessional BCD under Sl. No. 161 of Notification No. 10/2008-Cus on the strength of a Certificate of Origin issued under the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement. On examination, the goods were found packed in plain bags carrying no marks and numbers to indicate country of origin or manufacturer details. The adjudicating authority denied the concession and assessed the goods at merit rate of duty, which the appellant paid under protest. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)-II, Chennai upheld the denial, holding the unmarked bags could not be identified with the Certificate of Origin and that the certificate itself was deficient since it recorded packing in plain bags.

Key provisions

• Section 5(1), Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — Levy of a lower rate of duty under a trade agreement