Jindal Aluminium Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The case concerns an appeal against an order denying exemption from Basic Customs Duty on imported aluminium scrap under Notification No. 046/2011-Cus dated June 1, 2011, based on the ASEAN–India Free Trade Agreement. The appellant had imported “Aluminium Scrap Tread” from Singapore and filed three bills of entry claiming exemption on the basis of a valid Certificate of Origin (COO). However, during first check examination, customs authorities found that the goods did not bear any markings indicating the country of origin, manufacturer, or brand. On this basis, the adjudicating authority denied the exemption and reassessed the goods at the applicable duty rate. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.
The appellant contended that aluminium scrap is not a newly manufactured product and therefore cannot practically bear markings such as country of origin or manufacturer details. It was argued that under the Rules of Origin of the ASEAN–India Free Trade Agreement, physical marking is not mandatory. The appellant also submitted that customs authorities had verified all accompanying documents, including the Certificate of Origin, PSI certificate, and other relevant records, without noting any discrepancies. Further, it was argued that if the Certificate of Origin was to be rejected, the prescribed procedure required communication of reasons and return of the certificate to the issuing authority, which was not followed.
