Commissioner of Customs Vs Olam Enterprses India Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that benefit of exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 not admissible without a valid ASEAN-India Free Trade Area [AIFTA] certificate. Accordingly, appeal of department allowed.
Facts- This appeal arises from the import of teak round logs by the respondent on commercial invoices issued by M/s.Panasia International Limited, Dubai. At the time of assessment, the respondent did not claim any duty exemption and all three Bills of Entry were assessed on merit. The total duty assessed was Rs.2,25,04,169/-. Subsequently, the respondent filed three ex-bond Bills of Entry claiming exemption under Notification No.46/2011-Cus. and produced two AIFTA (ASEAN-India Free Trade Area) certificates certifying that the goods were consigned from Myanmar Timber Enterprises, Myanmar.
The original authority rejected the claim for duty exemption. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority and rejected the appeal. CESTAT allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, department has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Insofar as the first substantial question of law is concerned, the vessel MV Sioux Maiden departed from Myanmar on 31.03.2014 with the imported goods. However, the invoices included in the certificate are dated 23.05.2014, almost two months later. Once the shipment had already taken place in March 2014, an invoice dated in May 2014 cannot be relied upon to prove the origin of goods already transported. This clear mismatch between the shipment date and the invoice date casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the certificate. Further, the actual supplier to the respondent was M/s. Panasia International Ltd., Dubai, yet the certificate mentions Concorde Commodities, Singapore. Such omissions and discrepancies cannot be regarded as minor issues, since they fundamentally affect the authenticity and reliability of the certificate. The Tribunal, however, overlooked these lapses and treated the certificates as valid under the AIFTA Rules, which was not correct.
