Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter VAA — Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreement
Section 28DA. Procedure regarding claim of preferential rate of duty
Customs Act, 1962
Bare Act
Procedure regarding claim of preferential rate of duty. —
(1) An importer making claim for preferential rate of duty, in terms of any trade agreement, shall -
(i) make a declaration that goods qualify as originating goods for preferential rate of duty under such agreement;
(ii) possess sufficient information as regards the manner in which country of origin criteria, including the regional value content and product specific criteria, specified in the rules of origin in the trade agreement, are satisfied;
(iii) furnish such information in such manner as may be provided by rules;
(iv) exercise reasonable care as to the accuracy and truthfulness of the information furnished.
(2) The fact that the importer has submitted a certificate of origin issued by an Issuing Authority shall not absolve the importer of the responsibility to exercise reasonable care.
(3) Where the proper officer has reasons to believe that country of origin criteria has not been met, he may require the importer to furnish further information, consistent with the trade agreement, in such manner as may be provided by rules.
(4) Where importer fails to provide the requisite information for any reason, the proper officer may,-
(i) cause further verification consistent with the trade agreement in such manner as may be provided by rules;
(ii) pending verification, temporarily suspend the preferential tariff treatment to such goods:
Provided that on the basis of the information furnished by the importer or the information available with him or on the relinquishment of the claim for preferential rate of duty by the importer, the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, disallow the claim for preferential rate of duty, without further verification.
(5) Where the preferential rate of duty is suspended under sub-section (4), the proper officer may, on the request of the importer, release the goods subject to furnishing by the importer a security amount equal to the difference between the duty provisionally assessed under section 18 and the preferential duty claimed:
Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs may, instead of security, require the importer to deposit the differential duty amount in the ledger maintained under section 51A.
(6) Upon temporary suspension of preferential tariff treatment, the proper officer shall inform the Issuing Authority of reasons for suspension of preferential tariff treatment, and seek specific information as may be necessary to determine the origin of goods within such time and in such manner as may be provided by rules.
(7) Where, subsequently, the Issuing Authority or exporter or producer, as the case may be, furnishes the specific information within the specified time, the proper officer may, on being satisfied with the information furnished, restore the preferential tariff treatment.
(8) Where the Issuing Authority or exporter or producer, as the case may be, does not furnish information within the specified time or the information furnished by him is not found satisfactory, the proper officer shall disallow the preferential tariff treatment for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that in case of receipt of incomplete or non-specific information, the proper officer may send another request to the Issuing Authority stating specifically the shortcoming in the information furnished by such authority, in such circumstances and in such manner as may be provided by rules.
(9) Unless otherwise specified in the trade agreement, any request for verification shall be sent within a period of five years from the date of claim of preferential rate of duty by an importer.
(10) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the preferential tariff treatment may be refused without verification in the following circumstances, namely:-
(i) the tariff item is not eligible for preferential tariff treatment;
(ii) complete description of goods is not contained in the certificate of origin;
(iii) any alteration in the certificate of origin is not authenticated by the Issuing Authority;
(iv) the certificate of origin is produced after the period of its expiry, and in all such cases, the certificate of origin shall be marked as "INAPPLICABLE".
(11) Where the verification under this section establishes non-compliance of the imported goods with the country of origin criteria, the proper officer may reject the preferential tariff treatment to the imports of identical goods from the same producer or exporter, unless sufficient information is furnished to show that identical goods meet the country of origin criteria.
Explanation-For the purposes of this Chapter,-
(a)"certificate of origin" means a certificate issued in accordance with a trade agreement certifying that the goods fulfil the country of origin criteria and other requirements specified in the said agreement;
(b)"identical goods" means goods that are same in all respects with reference to the country of origin criteria under the trade agreement;
(c)"Issuing Authority" means any authority designated for the purposes of issuing certificate of origin under a trade agreement;
(d)"trade agreement" means an agreement for trade in goods between the Government of India and the Government of a foreign country or territory or economic union.
Judgments on Section 28DA
- Vrunda International vs Customs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 17 Aug 2026. Preferential/FTA duty benefit cannot be denied, nor duty, confiscation or penalty confirmed, on suspicion or third-party verification alone — the department must verify the importer's own Certificate of Origin from the…
- Balaji Niryat Pvt Ltd vs Kolkata-Port — CESTAT, 22 Jul 2026. Preferential tariff treatment under a trade agreement cannot be denied merely because the overseas supplier failed to cooperate in an origin verification, where the Certificates of Origin covering the importer's own…
- 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…
- Gururaj Steel vs Union Of India — Bombay High Court, 12 Feb 2026. Where a preferential duty claim is disputed pending origin verification, the goods should be provisionally assessed under Section 18 and released on bonds and bank guarantees securing the differential duty — as…
- Shakti Insulated Wires Pvt Ltd vs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 9 Apr 2025. Products in coil form are 'wire' under note 1(f) to Chapter 74 and cannot be classified as 'bars and rods' under note 1(d), so declaring coiled copper as heading 7407 correctly forfeits the CEPA exemption confined to…
- 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…
- Shri Santosh Kumar Senapati vs Kolkata-Prev — CESTAT, 27 Apr 2026. Where Certificates of Origin issued by the exporting country's authorities have been verified and certified correct, the DRI has no authority to question them, and in the absence of even an iota of evidence of…