By oversight an Importer has paid duty @ 5% instead of 1% and forgot to avail notification benefit. Is importer eligible to get refund by producing COO with retrospective effect ?

There is no issue of interpretation of notification and the matter is based on fact finding. If the appellant has produced the certificate of country of origin then there is no dispute between the parties. The appellant is required to pay Basic Customs duty at the rate of 1% and excess duty paid by the appellant is to be refunded.Certificate of origin can be produced later-on but with the words ISSUED RETROSPECTIVELY in remarks column.

OKAYA POWER LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CHANDIGARH 12.04.2017

#Customs Law Quick Bites-2

Whether amendment in the Bills of Entry can be allowed even when the Korean Certificate of Origin was issued at a later date retrospectively and was not available at the time of clearance of the Bills of Entry in contravention of the section 149 of the Customs Act 1962?

Korea-India Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. The manner of proof provided by the Tariff Rules and by virtue of Rule 15 read with paragraph 3(4) of Annexure-III of the Tariff Rules allows the assessee to prove this fact by obtaining the 'Certificate of Origin' not later than one year from the date of shipment of goods. Not only that, in cases where the 'Certificate of Origin' had been issued after seven days but upto one year from the date of shipment, the assessee is further burdened to explain the reason for the same-either being on account of involuntary errors or omissions or any other valid reasons and any other or further requirement that the revenue may claim under the Tariff Rules.

Once the assessee establishes the aforesaid facts, he would be entitled to claim exemption. The stipulation of Section 149 of the Act or any other provisions incorporated under the Act or the Rules for compliance of duty payment may not stand in the way of the assessee to claim exemption under Section 25 of the Act.

 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, NOIDA CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERATE, NOIDA VERSUS M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT 12-12-2017

# Customs Law Quick Bites-1

An importer has filed BoE but refused to pay shipper and collect the original documents from Banker. Now Shipper has find out another buyer in India and amended all the title documents with NOC from first party.New buyer possess clean title documents. IGM has been amended with new buyer name.New buyer has approached Customs to cancel previous Out of Charge and requested to amend BoE in his name and requested for manual OOC.Customs delays the process months together saying that no such precedent case in their jurisdiction and cannot issue manual OOC.Give your solution ?

As per Supreme Court Direction, title owner should be treated as importer as per definition of 'importer' in Section 2(26) should be allowed to pay the dues and take delivery of the cargo. Hence new buyer who is current cargo title owner should be allowed to amend BoE and take delivery of cargo after collecting necessary duties.

AGRIM SAMPADA LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF DELHI 16-01-2004

#Customs Law Quick Bites-1a