The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has recently, while deciding an appeal filed before it by an appellant, held that the Goods Declaration GD-1 (Transhipment Permit) is a sufficient document to establish the origin of the goods imported.
The aforesaid observation was made by the Tribunal, when the appellant, M/s Zubair Hashmi Trading, filed an appeal before it, to assail the order in original passed on 26.05.2022, by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi, deciding upon the Show Cause Notice of 18th April ,2022, issued to the appellant, denying his imported goods the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 99/2011-Cus dated 9.11.2011 and thereby demanding differential duty of Rs 95,55,958 under section 28(4) of the Customs Act along with its interest under section 28AA.
The imported goods being confiscated under sections 111(m), 111(o) and 111(q) of the Act, with redemption being allowed only on the payment of a fine amount of Rs. 3,76,000 under section 125 and the penalties imposed under sections 114A and 114AA, the issue involved in the appeal revolved around the question as to where shall the place of origin of the imported goods in question be considered, the same being imported from Afghanistan to India and transiting through Pakistan as asserted by the appellant.
The undisputed legal position being that the goods imported from Afghanistan are exempted from the whole of duty by a Notification No.99/2011-Customs dated 9.11.2011, and that all goods originating in or exported from Pakistan are classifiable under the Customs Tariff Heading 98060000 and hence chargeable to customs duty @ 200% in view of the Notification No.5/2019 dated 16.02.2019, issued under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the claim of the appellant is that his goods imported from Herat in Afghanistan, to the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, Delhi, though transported by road up to Chaman in Afghanistan-Pakistan border and from Chaman to Karachi port by another truck from where they were stuffed in containers under Customs supervision and shipped to ICD, Tughlakabad via Nhava Sheva port , the same is fully exempted by Notification No. 99/2011, they being of Afghanistan origin.
Hearing the opposing claim of the Revenue that the goods being exported from Karachi, Pakistan, the same is classifiable under a separate tariff heading 98060000 and will be chargeable to tariff rate of 200% duty, the Tribunal commented:
“Two other grounds of suspicion by the Principal Commissioner are that the Transit Certificate was not signed by the Pakistan Customs Officer and the Bill of Lading does not indicate the place of receipt of the goods and only mentions the Port of Loading as Karachi. We note that the Transit Certificate was issued by the Afghanistan authorities and not by Pakistan authorities.”
“While the appellant got a copy of the Transit Certificate endorsed by the Pakistan Customs and produced later, we do not find it at all necessary. Indian Customs cannot insist that the importer has to get a document issued by the Afghanistan Government also signed/ endorsed by the Pakistan Customs and there is no such requirement in the exemption notification.”, the bench added.
Thus, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appellant’s appeal, the tribunal concluded:
“As far as the Bill of Lading is concerned, it is true that it does not indicate the place of receipt of the goods and only mentions the Port of Loading as Karachi. Ideally, the Shipping Line should have mentioned that it received the goods in Karachi port itself but any doubt as to which goods were shipped by the Shipping Line to India and for which the Bill of Lading was issued will be put to rest if the Goods Declaration GD-1 Form filed with the Pakistan Customs is perused as the Examination Report by the officers clearly links the goods which were transported by road in a truck up to Karachi Port with the goods which were stuffed in the Container and shipped to India. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanPremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
