Facts 

• The appellant, M J Gold Pvt. Ltd., is an importer who filed Bill of Entry for clearance of goods declared as “22 K assorted jewellery (481 pieces) and declared to be Indonesia origin. On which the appellant claimed benefit of nil rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under S. No. 966 (I) of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011. 
• The Department asked for certain information about the origin of the goods and the appellant had given an incomplete information. Accordingly, the goods were opined to not to be eligible for the benefit of aforesaid notification No. 46/2011 Cus dated 01.06.2011. 
• Appeal was preferred which has been rejected and again the appellant filed the impugned appeal. 

Issue 

• Whether incomplete information about the origin of good can deny the benefit of nil rate?

Order 

• The Tribunal observed that the appellant had handed over the original copy of Country of origin Certificate. The denial on the sole ground that incomplete information to the questionnaire has been provided, is alleged to absolutely be wrong ground to deny the benefit of exemption Notification. The meaning of ‘not answered the questionnaire’ becomes utmost irrelevant in the light of Certificate of origin. 
• The condition No. 7 (c), makes it clear that in case of such doubt about the authenticity of Country of origin Certificate i.e. in case where the certificate of origin is not acceptable to the Customs Authorities of the importing country, then the certificate has to be returned back to the issuing authority that too within a reasonable period, the said procedure has not been followed by the Department.
• It is also stated that if the exemption sought under the applicable rules is denied on one or the other pretext that too based merely on assumptions and presumptions, it will hamper the free movement of trade between agreeing nations.
• Hence the order under challenge is set aside and appeal is allowed.