In an appeal against an order denying preference duty under SAFTA, the Customs Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the benefit of exemption cannot be denied where the country of origin certificate remains valid and un-challenged as fake.
The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1
Customs Appeal No. 76059 of 2024
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.CCP/NER/21/2024 dated 02.05.2024 passed by Commissioner of Customs(Preventive), Shillong)
M/s AWL Agri Business Ltd.
: Appellant
Fortune House, Nr. Navrangpura Railway Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs(Preventive), : Respondent 110 MG Road, Shillong, Meghalaya-793001.
APPEARANCE:
Shri Rahul Dhanuka, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri A.K.Chowdhury, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON’BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NO. 77960/ 2025
DATE OF HEARING :11.12.2025
DATE OF DECISION:11.12.2025
Order : [Per Shri Ashok Jindal]
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.
2.1. M/s. Adani Wilmar Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) is engaged in the business of manufacturing different types of edible oils, acid oil, soya gum, deo distillate etc. The company for the said purpose, imported 1,51,963 kilograms of Fortified Soyabean oil (hereinafter referred to as the “subject goods”) falling under the Sub-heading 1507 90 10 of the first schedule of the Customs tarrif Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff Act” ) from M/s. Bangladesh Edible Oils Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Exporter”), Bangladesh during the July, 2018.
2
Appeal No.: C/76059/2024-DB
2.2 The subject goods imported by the Appellant were accompanied by a valid COO bearing no. EPB/18/Others/6214 dated 05.07.2018 (Pg 88/PB) issued by the Export Promotion Bureau Dhaka, Bangladesh Origin (hereinafter referred to as the "issuing authority") issued under South Asian Free Trade Area Agreement (hereinafter referred as "SAFTA") . The Appellant initially filed Warehousing Bill of Entry No. 659333/IMP/WH/AGT-LCS/2017-18 dated 18th July 2018 and thereafter filed Ex- Bond Bill Entry bearing No. 659346/IMP/EX-BOND/AGTLCS/2018-2019 dated 01.08.2018 by claiming the BCD exemption in terms of Notification No. 99 on the strength of COO. The customs authority prima facie found that the subjects goods qualified for preferential treatment under SAFTA as the COO seemed genuine and proper and the consignment was given final clearance as per Section 68 of the Act on 03.08.2018.
2.3 The flow of events post final clearance of the subject goods by the Appellant is tabulated here-inbelow:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 06.09.2018 | Basis a communication dated 31.08.2018 and instruction No. 31/2016 –Cus dated 12.09.2016 and Circular No. 01/2018 dated 29.08.2018, the Assistant Commissioner, Agartala Land Customs Station vide his communication dated 06.09.2018 shared 6 COOs with Superintenent (Valuation), office of the Commissioner of Customs Preventive, Shillong for verification of the same. |
| 01.10.2018 | The Commissioner of Customs Preventive, Shillongforwarded 6 COOs to CBIC. |
| 11.11.2019 | CBIC informed Bngladesh authorities that verification report received in respect of 8 COOs (including the 6 COOs) was found deficient on many counts and no clarification was provided for non-mentioning of mandatory value of non-originating material as a percentage oftheFOB value. |
| 04.12.2020 | CBICvideitsletterdated 04.12.2020wrote to |
3
Appeal No.: C/76059/2024-DB
Commissioner of Customs, Preventive, Shillong that no response received from the issuing authority, assessment of 6 COOs may be finalized.
19.12.2020 Letter by Commissioner of Customs Preventive, Shillong to Assistant Commissioner, Agartala Land Customs Station to finalize the assessment of COO.
2.4 The Appellant was served with a demand cum show cause notice bearing reference GEN/ADJ/COMM/288/2023-LCS-AGTL-Div-AGTLCommrte-Shilong No. 1/1171655/2023 dated 08.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "impugned SCN") by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Land Customs Station, Agartala alleging since the COO's could not be verified by the issuing authority in time, the same is liable to be treated as disapproved and the preferential treatment is liable to be withdrawn. It further alleged that the Appellant has deliberately submitted false documents to the department and has colluded with the exporter.
2.5 The Appellant, vide letter dated 05.06.2023, requested the exporter to take up the matter with the Hon'ble High Commission of India, Dhaka, to facilitate a response to CBIC. Pursuant to such request, the exporter has inter alia shared the cost sheet basis which the COO has been issued, and which categorically indicates Domestic Value Addition of 30.46%. Further, through letters dated 07.06.2023 and 03.07.2023, the Appellant requested the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and CBIC, respectively, to keep the proceedings in abeyance until the High Commission of India, Dhaka concludes the matter.
2.6 The Appellant thereafter filed its reply to SCN vide its letter dated 11.09.2023. The Commissioner of Customs Preventive, Shillong disregarded the
4
Appeal No.: C/76059/2024-DB
contentions of the Appellant and passed the order bearing No. CCP/NER/21/2024 dated 02.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as "impugned Order") confirming the demands raised in the impugned SCN.
2.7 Hence the instant Appeall.
5
Appeal No.: C/76059/2024-DB
“ We further take note of the fact that it is not the case of the Revenue that the certificate issued by the exporter is not genuine or correct and the verification report given by Deputy Director, EPB, Bangladesh is not correct. The certificate of country of origin and the verification report cannot be doubted unless and until, the same is proved fake by the Revenue. No such allegation in the show cause
6
Appeal No.: C/76059/2024-DB
notice that the certificate of country of origin provided by the exporter and the verification report are fake. In that circumstances, the benefit of exemption Notification cannot be denied to the appellant. “
Further, in this case no conclusive report has been obtained by the Revenue from the authorities who have issued certificate of country of origin to the appellant. In that circumstances, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kanpur Edibles Private Ltd. (Supra) the benefit of the exemption Notification No 99/2011 dated 09.11.2011 cannot be denied to the appellant.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court)
(ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
(K. ANPAZHAKAN)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
RG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether benefit of exemption under Notification No. 99 can be denied when the country of origin certificate is not rejected as fake by the authorities.
Whether the appeal filed by M/s AWL Agri Business Ltd. against the impugned order confirming the demand should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kanpur Edibles Private Ltd & Ors.Relied on¶42
Kanpur Edibles Private Ltd & Ors. Vs. CC (Preventive), Kolkata [2024 (5) TMI 576]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s AWL Agri Business Ltd.
Commissioner of Customs(Preventive), Shillong
Ashok Jindal
K. Anpazhakan
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal in a customs matter before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
