Plain Packaging Not Ground to Deny Concession Duty Under India-Singapore Trade Agreement: CESTAT Quashes Denial of Benefit for HDPE Granules [Read Order]

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that HDPE granules imported in plain bags cannot be denied concessional duty under the India-Singapore trade agreement solely for lack of markings and ruled that product-description requirements apply to the Certificate of Origin, not packaging.

Since the Certificate was validly issued and Customs failed to seek verification under the prescribed Rules of Origin, the rejection was unlawful. The Tribunal set aside the denial and allowed the benefit with consequential relief.

The Appellant, M/s. Blow Plast Industries, challenges the denial of concessional duty benefit under Notification No. 10/2008- Cus dated 15.01.2008 for imported HDPE Granules originating from Singapore, on the sole ground that the imported goods did not bear marks and numbers indicating the country of origin and manufacturer details on the packages.

Also Read:Penalty Not Sustainable when Customs Ignores Assessee’s Valuation: CESTAT Quashes Penalties of Rs 1.57 Crore [Read Order]

The Appellant was aggrieved by the impugned Order – in - Appeal C. Cus II 276/2016 dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals- II), Chennai up-holding the order of the adjudicating authority.

The Appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 3026214 dated 24.10.2015 for clearance of HDPE Granules valued at USD 35,520 (CIF), shipped by M/s. Eveready Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., Singapore. They claimed concessional Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 10/2008-Cus dated 15.01.2008 based on a Certificate of Origin issued under the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement.

Upon verification of the self-assessed Bill of Entry and subsequent examination by docks officers, the inspection report stated:

“Opened and inspected S/-5%Pkgs contents: HDPE Granules Grade: HD-A-RC/NT (High Density Polyethylene) description verified is subject to test report from CIPET. No Marks and Nos. are available on the bags, (Plain Bags), country of origin not available in the bags, verified COO Certificate. Sample forwarded to CIPET for testing. B/E returned to group for further order.”

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

Based on this inspection report, the adjudicating authority alleged that the imported goods were not eligible for the benefit under Customs Notification No. 10/2008 dated 15.01.2008 on the ground that the goods did not carry any marks and numbers to indicate the country of origin and the manufacturer details. Accordingly, the imported goods were assessed at the merit rate of duty, and the Appellant cleared the goods upon payment of duty under protest.

The adjudicating authority denied the concessional duty benefit on the ground that without marks and numbers on the packages, the goods could not be correlated with the Certificate of Origin. The goods were assessed at merit rate, and the appellant cleared them under protest (Order in Original dated 16.02.2016).

The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the original order, holding that identification of bags with the Certificate of Origin was impossible without marks. The authority also found the certificate deficient as it mentioned "plain bags" (Order-in-Appeal dated 22.03.2016). Aggrieved by the appellate order, the appellant filed this appeal before CESTAT Chennai.

Also Read:Gold Seizure by Customs: CESTAT says Dept failed to prove Seized Gold is Foreign and Smuggled, Orders Release [Read Order]

The Counsel for the Appellant, V. Pramila, argued that the Certificate of Origin clearly mentioned "Packing 1280 Bags x25kgs in Plain Bags", with all details matching the manufacturer's invoice. The manufacturer declared authenticity and the Singapore Issuing Authority certified the declaration as correct, proving due diligence before export. The certificate, issued by a competent government authority, has neither been recalled nor cancelled. The appellate authority erred in calling it deficient when the Issuing Authority itself certified the goods were in plain bags.

The Counsel stated that notification does not require marks and numbers on physical packages—the appellate authority misread Sl.No.05 of the Overleaf note. Customs unilaterally rejected the certificate without following any verification procedure to dispute it with the Issuing Authority, which is legally untenable.

Further, the Counsel relied on M/s. R S Industries (Rolling Mills) Ltd v CCE, Jaipur I, 2017 (11) TMI 1256- CESTAT NEW DELHI; Romil Jewelry & Ors v Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, 2023 (9) TMI 462- CESTAT MUMBAI; Tech Zone Global Trading Company & others Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Chennai,2025 (5) TMI 589-CESTAT CHENNAI and others, holding that valid Certificates of Origin issued by competent authorities cannot be questioned or discarded by Indian assessing authorities.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent, Sanjay Kakkar, Authorised Representative, opposed the arguments of the Appellant, reiterating the findings in the impugned order in appeal. He submitted that Sl. No. 5 of the overleaf condition of the Certificate of Origin stood unfulfilled in the present case, and hence the appellate authority had rightly upheld the order of the original adjudicating authority denying the benefit of the notification claimed by the appellant.

The Tribunal consisted of Judicial Member, Ajayan T.V and Technical Member, M. Ajit Kumar, heard and reviewed the matter.

Also Read:Excise Duty Cannot Rest on Assumptions: CESTAT Rules Clandestine Clearance Allegation Fails for Lack of Cogent Evidence [Read Order]

The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions made by both the Counsels, found that the sole issue for consideration was whether the customs authorities were justified in denying the benefit of the Notification claimed on the ground that the imported goods were not correlatable with the Certificate of Origin accompanying them.

The Tribunal further stated that the appellate authority had laboured under the misapprehension that the Certificate of Origin was deficient because no marks and numbers were mentioned on the packages. This finding was premised on a misconception about the requirement of Sl. No. 5 of the overleaf note. The Certificate of Origin explicitly mentioned "Packing in Plain Bags" and was issued under the certification by the certifying authority that the declaration by the exporter was correct.

Thus, the impugned order in appeal was unsustainable and hereby set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs in accordance with law. The Order was pronounced in open court on 11.11.2025

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates