Page 302 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

284 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
tion 46(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also submitted that in the present case,
the issue is with regard to the ‘country of origin’ declared in the bills of entry
filed, with respect to impugned imports for clearance for home consumption as
UAE while in the investigation it was found that the import was from Iran. He
further submitted that the Revenue failed to establish by way of any documen-
tary evidence in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order that the
appellants are connected with the manipulation of the import documents. Fur-
ther, he referred to the statements made by various persons during the course of
investigations including the appellant and also the Captain of the Vessel and
none of them have implicated or stated about the involvement of the appellant
directly or indirectly to the manipulation of the import documents. He also sub-
mitted that as per the procedure provided by the Central Board of Excise and
Customs in the Customs Manual, 2015, the ‘country of origin’ becomes relevant
to be mentioned in the bill of entry if preferential rate of duty is claimed by the
importer whereas in the present case the importer did not claim any preferential
rate of duty and mentioned the ‘country of origin’ in the bills of entry as per the
documents given to him by the supplier based at Dubai. In support of his sub-
missions he relied upon the following decisions and circular :
(a) Oriental Containers Ltd. v. Union of India, 2003 (157) E.L.T. 503 (Bom.)
(b) Shree Ganesh International v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur, 2004 (174)
E.L.T. 171 (Tri. - Del.)
(c) Kirti Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs, Faridabad,
2008 (232) E.L.T. 151 (Tri. - Del.)
(d) Trishla Steel Engg. Co. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Nhava Sheva,
2014 (313) E.L.T. 443 (Tri. - Mumbai)
(e) RBI Circular No. 31 (RBI/2010-11/335), dated 27-12-2010.
5. On the other hand, the Learned AR defended the impugned order
and submitted that there was a misdeclaration in the bill of entry regarding the
‘country of origin’ of the imported goods. He further submitted that goods start-
ed from Iran and at Sharjah Master of the vessel along with the steamer agent
and other persons manipulated the documents and changed the ‘country of
origin’ from “Iran” to “UAE” in various documents given to the appellant. He
further submitted that the prohibition imposed under Section 111(d) includes
any restriction, and in the present case there was a restriction regarding the
payments to Iran imposed by Reserve Bank of India.
6. After considering the submissions of the both the parties and perusal
of the material on record, I find that in the present case there is no dispute that
the impugned goods i.e., bitumen is not prohibited goods either under the Cus-
toms Act or Foreign Trade Policy or any other law in force at the time of importa-
tion of goods and the Customs in the show cause notice has admitted this fact. It
is also a fact that there is no prohibition of impugned goods from Iran either un-
der the Customs Act or Foreign Trade Policy. Further, I find that the only allega-
tion against the appellant in the present case is that in the bill of entry filed by
them, they have wrongly mentioned the ‘country of origin’ as “UAE” whereas in
fact the ‘country of origin’ is from Iran. After perusal of various statements made
by the various persons during the course of investigation including that of the
appellant, I find that nobody has spoken against the appellant that the appellant
is in any way involved in the manipulation of changing the ‘country of origin’
documents. The appellant has filed the bill of entry and showed the ‘country of
origin’ as “UAE” on the basis of documents supplied to him by the supplier
based at UAE. Further no document has been produced by Revenue on record to
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  302