Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 › Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020
Rule 6. Verification request
Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020
Official text
Rule 6. Verification request. —
(1) The proper officer may, during the course of customs clearance or thereafter, request for verification of certificate of origin from Verification Authority where:
(a) there is a doubt regarding genuineness or authenticity of the certificate of origin for reasons such as mismatch of signatures or seal when compared with specimens of seals and signatures received from the exporting country in terms of the trade agreement;
(b) there is reason to believe that the country of origin criterion stated in the certificate of origin has not been met or the claim of preferential rate of duty made by importer is invalid; or
(c) verification is being undertaken on random basis, as a measure of due diligence to verify whether the goods meet the origin criteria as claimed:
Provided that a verification request in terms of clause (b) may be made only where the importer fails to provide the requisite information sought under rule 5 by the prescribed due date or the information provided by importer is found to be insufficient. Such a request shall seek specific information from the Verification Authority as may be necessary to determine the origin of goods.
(2) Where information received in terms of sub-rule (1) is incomplete or nonspecific, request for additional information or verification visit may be made to the Verification Authority, in such manner as provided in the Rules of Origin of the specific trade agreement, under which the importer has sought preferential tariff treatment.
(3) When a verification request is made in terms of this rule, the following timeline for furnishing the response shall be brought to the notice of the Verification Authority while sending the request:
(a) timeline as prescribed in the respective trade agreement; or
(b) in absence of such timeline in the agreement, sixty days from the request having been communicated.
(4) Where verification in terms of clause (a) or (b) of sub-rule (1) is initiated during the course of customs clearance of imported goods,
(a) T he preferential tariff treatment of such goods may be suspended till conclusion of the verification;
(b) T he verification Authority shall be informed of reasons for suspension of preferential tariff treatment while making request of verification; and
(c) T he proper officer may, on the request of the importer, provisionally assess and clear the goods, subject to importer furnishing a security amount equal to the difference between the duty provisionally assessed under section 18 of the Act and the preferential duty claimed.
(5) All requests for verification under this rule shall be made through a nodal office as designated by the Board.
(6) Where the information requested in this rule is received within the prescribed timeline, the proper officer shall conclude the verification within forty five days of receipt of the information, or within such extended period as the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs may allow:
Provided that where a timeline to finalize verification is prescribed in the respective Rules of Origin, the proper officer shall finalize the verification within such timeline.
(7) The proper officer may deny claim of preferential rate of duty without further verification where:
(a) T he verification Authority fails to respond to verification request within prescribed timelines;
(b) The verification Authority does not provide the requested information in the manner as provided in this rule read with the Rules of Origin; or
(c) The information and documents furnished by the Verification Authority and available on record provide sufficient evidence to prove that goods do not meet the origin criteria prescribed in the respective Rules of Origin.
Judgments on Rule 6
- Imperial Fibres Pvt Ltd vs Mundra — CESTAT, 31 Aug 2026. The extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked, and a beneficial exemption cannot be denied, where the department's delayed, partial and unauthenticated foreign verification of Certificates…
- Rajasthan Metals vs Union Of India & Ors — Delhi High Court, 28 Apr 2026. Unincorporated treaty provisions cannot override national law, and Customs authorities retain full jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 to issue show cause notices alleging fraud, misrepresentation or…
- Covestro India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Custome… — Bombay High Court, 16 Apr 2026. A Commissioner of Customs cannot, by public notice, dilute the benefits of free trade agreements or obliterate the law or CBIC circulars; instructions on such trade-agreement matters flow solely from the CBIC under…
- M/S M.D. Overseas Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors. — Delhi High Court, 13 Sep 2024. A proper officer cannot mechanically impose a 100% PD Bond or Bank Guarantee pending certificate-of-origin verification; absent recorded grounds under Section 18(1) and compliance with the Section 28DA/CAROTAR…
- Anil Agarwal vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 3 Jul 2025. Penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act is sustainable only where the department proves, by credible evidence including enquiries with the certificate-issuing authorities as contemplated by Rule 6 of the CAROTAR…
- Omega Packwell Private Limited vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 7 Jun 2024. A retracted Section 108 statement, unless substantially corroborated by independent and cogent evidence and not rebutted by the Department, cannot sustain confiscation or penalty, and Section 114AA applies only where a…