Page 233 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] R.K. DIGITAL SOLUTIONS v. UNION OF INDIA 671

4. Petitioner contends that as per the said Notification as amended,
goods imported from Indonesia falling under chapter sub-heading 7108 13 00 of
Customs Tariff, qualify for concessional rate of duty of customs at 0% during the
material period of import under the subject six bills of entry (5-4-2019 to 3-5-
2019).
5. The exemption from customs duty admittedly is subject to fulfilment
of condition laid down in the said notification, which requires the importer to
prove to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant
Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, that the goods in respect of which
the benefit of this exemption is claimed are of the origin of countries as men-
tioned in Appendix-I thereat, in accordance with the provisions of the Customs
Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agree-
ment Between the Governments of Member States of the Association of South
East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India) Rules, 2009, published in
the Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of
Revenue) No. 189/2009-Cus. (N.T.), dated 31-12-2009.
6. Petitioner contends that it had submitted to the Customs authorities,
the Country of Origin Certificates required for claiming the duty exemption at
the time of import itself, which are annexed to the writ petition as P. 2.1/P-5.1 to
P-5.6, and contended these certificates were issued by the competent office in
Provinsi DKI Jakarta, Indonesia.
7. Petitioner also contended that the respondents insisted for submis-
sions of Bank Guarantee covering 100% of the duty exempted despite the peti-
tioner submitting the certificates of Country of Origin issued by the competent
authority and despite the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Circular No.
38/2016, dated 22-8-2016; and on the insistence of the respondents it had execut-
ed a provisional duty bond supported by 100% Bank Guarantee from a Sched-
uled Bank to cover the exempted duty for provisional assessment of the subject
Bills of Entry and release of goods.
8. Petitioner contended that under duress, he had furnished Bond and
Bank Guarantee for each of the consignments imported under the six bills of en-
try, so as to clear the goods in time and to avoid demurrage and price fall risk.
The details of Bonds and Bank Guarantees furnished are attached as Annuxre-P-
2.1/P-7.1 to P-7.6.
9. It is not in dispute that the respondents had sought to make a retro-
active check in February, 2020 vide. Jak/Com/217/2/2016(19) from the compe-
tent authority in Indonesia regarding the goods covered by the 6 Bills of Entry,
and vide Ref. No. 2/Verification-Jkt/2/2020, dated 11-2-2020 and Ref. No.
2/Verification-Jkt/2/2020, dated 11-2-2020, the competent authority of the Indo-
nesian Government had confirmed that the goods originated in Indonesia only.
10. Petitioner contends that respondents are obligated to return the
Bank Guarantees given by the petitioner in the light of above referred verifica-
tions issued on 11-2-2020 by the Competent Authority of the Government of In-
donesia in respect of the subject Bills of Entry, copies of which are now been
placed on record by the Counsel for the petitioner.
11. He also relied upon the Order passed by this Court on 3-2-2020 in
W.P. No. 1356 of 2020.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  233