Case Details: Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vs. Olam Enterprses India Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 36 Centax 25 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- P. Velmurugan & K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ.
- Ms R. Nandakumar, Senior Counsel, for the Appellant.
- Shri Joseph Prabakar, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The respondent imported teak logs and later claimed duty exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. by producing AIFTA certificates. The original authority rejected the claim because the certificates did not correspond to the consignment—the vessel carrying the goods departed Myanmar on 31.03.2014, but the invoices included in the certificates were dated 23.05.2014, almost two months later. The actual supplier was Panasia International Ltd., Dubai, but the certificate mentioned Concorde Commodities, Singapore instead. These discrepancies created serious doubt about the authenticity and reliability of the certificate of origin. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, but the CESTAT allowed the exemption, treating the defects as minor.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the omissions and discrepancies in the AIFTA certificates—such as invoices dated after shipment and incorrect third-country supplier details—were not minor and fundamentally affected their authenticity. An invoice issued after the goods had already shipped could not establish origin. Since the importer failed to prove eligibility for exemption through a valid and genuine certificate of origin, the exemption was rightly denied. The CESTAT’s order was set aside and the orders of the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) were restored.
List of Cases Cited
- Olam Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2018 (362) E.L.T. 378 (Tribunal) — Reversed [Paras 1, 4, 14]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., dated 1-6-2011 [Paras 2, 6, 8, 13, 14]
