CESTAT Bangalore on Silk Import Duty Exemption

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 30.06.2026

CESTAT Bangalore on Silk Import Duty Exemption

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Bangalore recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. Gounder & Co. and others versus the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. This case revolved around the eligibility for customs duty exemption on the import of Mulberry Rose Silk from Vietnam, the procedural compliance for verifying the country of origin, and the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.

Background of the Case

M/s. Gounder & Co., along with associated appellants, imported Mulberry Rose Silk from Vietnam, claiming exemption under Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011. They submitted a Country of Origin (COO) certificate as required by Notification No. 189/2009-Cus (NT). The goods were cleared after assessment and exemption.

However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation, alleging that the goods actually originated from China and were routed through Vietnam to wrongfully claim the exemption. Based on this, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued, and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for differential duty, imposed interest, and levied penalties on the appellants.

Legal Issues Examined

The Tribunal addressed three main issues:

1. Eligibility for Exemption Notification No. 46/2011
2. Sustainability of the Demand for Differential Duty
3. Legality of the Penalties Imposed

Key Arguments and Legal Provisions

Appellants’ Contentions

• The COO certificate was rejected without following the mandatory procedures outlined in Notification No. 189/2009-Cus (NT) and the ASEAN-India Free Trade Area (AIFTA) rules.
• Evidence relied upon (statements under Section 108, email printouts, and third-party documents) did not meet the admissibility requirements under Sections 138B, 138C, and 139 of the Customs Act, 1962.
• The right to cross-examine witnesses and challenge evidence was denied.
• The extended period for demand under Section 28(4) was invoked without positive legal evidence.
• Penalties under Section 114AA were incorrectly imposed, as this section applies only to exports.

Revenue’s Position

• The department argued that fraudulent documents were submitted to claim exemption.
• Penalties were justified for acts of omission and commission by the appellants.

Tribunal’s Findings

• The Tribunal emphasized that statutory procedures for verifying the COO certificate were not followed. Specifically, the authorities failed to conduct retroactive checks as required by the relevant notifications and AIFTA procedures.
• The rejection of the COO certificate and the confirmation of demand were based on inadmissible evidence, such as unverified statements and unauthenticated documents.
• The law is clear: if a statute prescribes a specific procedure, it must be strictly followed. Any deviation renders subsequent actions invalid.
• The Tribunal cited several Supreme Court judgments reinforcing the principle that procedural lapses invalidate administrative actions.

Outcome and Implications

• The CESTAT set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and granting consequential relief to the appellants.
• The ruling underscores the importance of procedural compliance in customs investigations and adjudication.
• It clarifies the evidentiary standards required for rejecting COO certificates and imposing penalties.

Table: Summary of Liabilities and Penalties

Sl. No.	Appellant	Duty (Rs)	Penalty (Rs)
1	M/s Gounder & Co. (Main Appellant)	29,70,272	29,70,272 (Sec 114A)
2	Smt M. Poovizhi	—	14,85,136 (Sec 114A), 1,48,514 (Sec 114AA/112)
3	P. Ayyappan	—	29,70,272 (Sec 114AA), 2,97,207 (Sec 112)
4	R. Mohammed Muzammil	—	14,85,136 (Sec 114AA), 1,48,514 (Sec 112)

Legal Takeaways for Importers

1. Strict Adherence to Statutory Procedures: Authorities must follow prescribed procedures for verifying COO certificates before denying exemptions.
2. Evidentiary Standards: Only admissible and authenticated evidence can be relied upon in customs proceedings.
3. Right to Cross-Examination: Parties must be given the opportunity to challenge and cross-examine evidence and witnesses.
4. Penalties Must Align with Statutory Provisions: Penalties can only be imposed under the correct sections and for the correct reasons.

Conclusion

This CESTAT Bangalore decision serves as a crucial precedent for importers and customs authorities alike, reinforcing the necessity of procedural fairness and evidentiary rigor in customs adjudication. Importers should ensure compliance with all documentary and procedural requirements, while authorities must adhere strictly to statutory mandates when investigating and adjudicating exemption claims.

Source: CESTAT Bangalore

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com