2026-VIL-1833-CESTAT-KOL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Denial of preferential rate of Basic Customs Duty under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement on the ground of incorrect Regional Value Content - Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 - Appellant imported silver bangles from Thailand and claimed nil rate of duty under the Notification, supported by Country of Origin Certificate issued by the Government of Thailand and declaration in Form-I setting out the production process and Regional Value Content - Goods were examined, assayed and seized by DRI, and provisionally released - SCN proposed enhancement of value, denial of the Notification benefit, differential duty and penalties, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority - Revenue alleged that the RVC claimed was inflated since the supplier showed silver loss in production far above the maximum wastage permitted by a DGFT Public Notice, so that the actual RVC was below the prescribed threshold - Appellant contended that the Country of Origin Certificate was not disproved and that Revenue applied its own computation without evidence - Whether the preferential rate can be denied by recomputing the RVC on the basis of the DGFT Public Notice - HELD - The DGFT Public Notice applies to manufacturers of silver jewellery located in India and is not applicable to foreign manufacturers. Revenue did not allege that the Country of Origin Certificate was not genuine or was fabricated, and the certificate issued by the competent authority of the exporting country is an admissible document. In the absence of corroborative evidence to the contrary, the benefit cannot be denied on assumptions and presumptions or on the basis of the Public Notice - The benefit of the Notification is available to the Appellant and the appeal is allowed on this issuernrn rnrnIssue 2: Rejection of declared value and enhancement of assessable value of imported goods - Assayer valued the imported silver bangles at a lower figure on the basis of silver market rate, exchange rate and estimated making charges, though the Chemical Examiner confirmed that the silver content was consistent with the grade declared - Adjudicating authority rejected the declared value and confirmed differential duty - Appellant contended that the burden of displacing the declared value lies on Revenue through positive evidence - Whether the charge of undervaluation and the consequent demand of differential duty are sustainable - HELD - The denial of the Notification benefit having been held unsustainable, the charge of undervaluation, which was founded on the same allegation, is liable to be discarded - The enhancement of value and consequent demand of differential duty are not sustainable in law.rnrn rnrnIssue 3: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under Sections 111(m), 111(q), 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Goods were held liable to confiscation, redemption fine was imposed and penalties were levied on the Appellant as a consequence of denial of the Notification benefit and rejection of declared value - Whether the goods are liable to confiscation and whether redemption fine and penalties are imposable - HELD - Since the denial of the preferential rate and the enhancement of value have not been sustained, the foundation for confiscation does not survive and the goods are not liable to confiscation - The redemption fine and penalties are unwarranted, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page