Devendran Coal International Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports) (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that denying substantial benefits only for technical errors would not do justice to the appellant. Thus, technical error in Certificate of Origin cannot result in denial of concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD).
Facts- The appellant filed Bills of Entry for the clearance of goods declared as “steaming (non-coking) coal” in bulk. The bills of entry were provisionally assessed since the quantity of bulk cargo has to be verified. The goods were classified under CTH 2701.1920 and assessed to 5% basic customs duty in terms of Customs Notification No. 21/2002 Sl. No. 70. The provisional assessment was finalized on 23.3.2011.
The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) claiming the benefit of concessional rate of BCD at 3% in terms of Notification No. 153/2009 as amended by Customs Notification No. 135/2010 under the ASEAN FTA Preferential Tariff Agreement. The claim was rejected. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that denying substantial benefits only for technical errors would not do justice to the appellant. While the authenticity of COO is doubted by revenue on this score, nothing concrete has been mentioned in the impugned order to justify the doubt, except for the correction made and the date of the COO certificate being after the date of shipment. Doubt is not a substitute for proof. There is no other taint on the validity of the certificate. The procedure mentioned in the Rules to check any doubt regarding the COO certificate was not followed. We find that Constitutional Courts have held the doctrine of substantial compliance to be a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can reasonably expected of it, but failed or faulted in some minor or inconsequent aspects which cannot be described as the “essence” or the “substance” of the requirements. The said doctrine would apply to the error pointed out in the impugned order. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence.
