Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. It is on the aforesaid backdrop the Petitioner has contended that on 20 th March 2024, the Respondent no.2 Commissioner of Customs, (NS-III), Turant Suvidha Kendra, Nhava Sheva, issued a public notice No.33/2024 stating that there are practical problems faced in case of third party invoicing, including cases where FOB value is not indicated in the CoO certificate, third party invoices do not mention FOB value etc and thereby prescribing additional requirements. As the Petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of such public notice, which according to the Petitioner has led to the passing of the impugned order, the said public notice is required to be extracted, which reads thus :

(iii) The CTH in the Bill of Entry filed on the basis of 3rd Party invoice does M.S.Thatte 12 of 26 4.WP.11540.2024.DOC not match with the CTH indicated in the FTA Certificate:
The importer will submit invoice of exporter of originating country on the basis of which FTA certificate was issued and amend Bill of Entry accordingly.

4. In case, the presented FTA certificate does not provide even FOB value in the requisite column, except the FTA certificate which do not have FOB value column (e.g. CEPA), the FTA certificate may be referred to Group for necessary verification from exporting country in terms of CAROTAR Rules- 2020.

ii. If the INCOTERMS of third country invoices is FOB, and the FOB value indicated on the third country invoice is same as that indicated on the FTA-COO, the same prima facie indicates that the FOB value indicated on the FTA-COO includes the value addition (profit and other charges) of the third country supplier. The same is not permitted under the preferential Trade Agreements. In such cases, the importer shall include an explanation for the identical FOB values mentioned in the two documents, include an explanation for the identical FOB values mentioned in the two document, viz. FTA-COO and the third country invoice at the time of submission of self-assessed Bill of Entry.

In these circumstances, the Petitioner filed letters dated 25 th April 2024, 4th May 2024, 9th May 2024 and 14th May 2024 and submitted that the BoE may be provisionally assessed as the Petitioner was ready to pay full duty under protest till the issues are resolved.

16. The Petitioner contends that, however, without an opportunity of being heard, the Respondent no.1 passed the impugned assessment order dated 12 th June 2024, which does not dispute that the manufacturer of the goods is M/s.Covestro (Thailand) Co. Limited, Thailand and the supplier was M/s.Covestro (Hong Kong) Limited. The Petitioner contends that the limited doubt raised in the impugned order is that in the FTA, the FOB value is mentioned whereas in the invoice, CIF value is mentioned, as a result of which the FOB value cannot be ascertained from the invoice, and the breakup of third country invoice was not given as per public notice no.33/2024 (supra). In the absence of the manufacturer's invoice and breakup in respect thereto, the FTA benefit was denied to the Petitioner M.S.Thatte 19 of 26 4.WP.11540.2024.DOC purportedly under Section 28DA(4) and Rule 5(5) of the CAROTAR 2020. It was also held that the Petitioner has obtained the FTA certificate through mis- representation of actual FOB value.