Dry Dates Found of UAE Origin Not Pakistan, Valid Documents Present and No Fraud Proven: CESTAT Sets Aside Customs Demand [Read Order]
CESTAT ruled that dry dates imported by S.S. Overseas were of UAE origin, not Pakistan, and, finding no evidence of misstatement or fraud, set aside the customs duty demand and penalties imposed under the Customs Act.
Dry - dates - Taxscan
Dry - dates - Taxscan
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, which had reclassified dry dates imported by S.S. Overseas under tariff item 9806 00 00 as of Pakistani origin and confirmed a customs duty demand with penalties.
The assessee, S.S. Overseas, had entered into a sales contract on 02.07.2019 with GVO Global FZC, UAE, for the supply of 55 MT of dry dates. Relying on a commercial invoice, packing list, fumigation certificate, phytosanitary certificate issued by the UAE Plant Protection Organization, and a certificate of origin dated 16.07.2019 from Ajman Chamber of Commerce, the importer filed a Bill of Entry on 09.08.2019. The goods were duly examined by the proper officer, assessed to duty, and cleared on payment.
A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 04.12.2020 alleged that the dry dates were of Pakistani origin based on a container tracking report and an export declaration from the freight forwarder indicating movement from Karachi, Pakistan, to India via Jebel Ali, UAE.
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
The Principal Commissioner held that the goods originated from Pakistan, invoked the extended limitation under Section 28(4), and imposed penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
On appeal, the Tribunal noted that the documents submitted by the appellant, particularly the certificate of origin issued by a competent UAE authority, had not been cancelled or questioned by the issuing authority.
The Tribunal also observed that the Rule 6 of the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin) Rules, 2020 provided a procedure for verifying the genuineness of such certificates, but no such verification was undertaken with the UAE authorities. Instead, the documents was placed on an unsigned photocopy of an export declaration obtained from a shipping line, which contained discrepancies in consignee details, invoice values, and lacked attestation. The Tribunal, relying on its earlier decision in Omega Packwell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Customs (2024), held that such documents could not displace a valid certificate of origin.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
The bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V.Subba Rao (Technical Member) noted that there was no evidence of willful misstatement, collusion, or suppression by the importer, as declarations were made based on documents verified by customs officers at the time of clearance. Therefore, penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the dry dates were of UAE origin, not Pakistan, and concluded that the customs demand and penalties could not be sustained.
The assessee was represented by Tarun Gulati along with Prem Ranjan Kumar and Shruti, while Rajesh Singh represented the revenue.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
