ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The appellants imported 55 MTs of carbon black from Republic of Korea and filed a Bill of Entry, which was assessed to duty at normal rate and such duty was paid by the assessee. Subsequently, the appellants noticed that the rate of duty applicable, under Notification No. 26/95-Cus. dated 16-3-95, to the above goods imported from Korea was lesser than the tariff rate. Accordingly, they filed a claim for refund of the differential duty. The original authority and the first appellate authority held that, as the assessee had not produced the requisite certificate prescribed under para 6(2) of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Bangkok Agreement) Rules, 1976, they were not eligible for the concessional rate of duty under the above notification and consequently they were not eligible for refund. The present appeal is against the decision of the lower authorities.
2. There is no representation for the appellants despite notice. The respondent is represented by the SDR. As we find that this appeal can be disposed of on the basis of the materials on record, we are inclined to take up this appeal of the year 1999 for disposal. Notification No. 26/95-Cus., dated 16-3-95 (as amended) prescribed concessional rates of customs duty on specified goods imported from the Republic of Korea which had ratified the Bangkok Agreement. The carbon black imported by the appellants was one of such goods. For claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the notification, the importer was required to comply with the requirements specified under the aforesaid rules. The rules required the importer to produce a certificate of origin of the goods from a governmental agency or an authorized body nominated by the exporting Member State and to be written, typed or printed in the English language on invoices of goods. The invoice covering the goods in question mentioned as under :
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN
issued by
THE KOREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY
(KCCI)
Seoul, Republic of KoreaColumn No. 5 of the invoice mentioned the Republic of Korea as the country of origin. The invoice contained the following certificate printed in Column No. 10 thereof:
The Korea Chamber of Commerce & Industry hereby certifies, on the basis of relevant invoice and other documents, that the above mentioned goods originate in the country shown in column 5.
The original authority found the above certificate to be unsigned. The lower appellate authority took the view that, whether signed or otherwise, the above certificate was not a certificate required for claiming preferential rate of duty under the notification. Neither of these can be accepted. We have found the above certificate to have been signed on behalf of the Korea Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Republic of Korea. The signature is part of a seal of KCCI stamped below the above text of certificate. Within the seal, the signature appears between the full name of KCCI and the full name of the Republic of Korea. This is indicative of the fact that KCCI was an authorized body nominated by the Republic of Korea (exporting Member State) for issuing such a certificate. Neither of the lower authorities seems to have applied its mind to the certificate of origin furnished in the invoice. The importer satisfied the requirement as to the certificate of origin of goods. No other reason has been stated by the lower appellate authority for denying the benefit of the notification to the importer.
3. For the reasons noted above, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal, with consequential relief.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open Court on 3-10-2005)