2018 (3) TMI 1884 - AT - Customs

Whether abatement of duty element from FOB price of iron ore, which is being exported by the appellant, is to be allowed for determining the transaction value for the purpose of assessment of export duty by treating FOB price of the goods as cum-duty price? HELD THAT - It has been brought to our notice by the Learned AR that the issue stand decided in the same assessee s case reported as Sesa Goa Ltd. v. CC 2010 (8) TMI 747 - CESTAT, MUMBAI . It stand held by the Tribunal that FOB price of the goods is the price actually paid or payable by the importer to the exporter in respect of the goods exported and the assessable value cannot be brought down by extending the benefit of cum-duty price. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether abatement of duty element from FOB price of iron ore for determining transaction value for assessment of export duty is allowed.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai, delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J), and Shri Raju, Member (T), dealt with the issue of allowing abatement of duty element from the FOB price of iron ore for determining the transaction value for the assessment of export duty. The Tribunal noted that the issue in all the appeals was identical, and hence, a common order was passed. The central question revolved around whether the FOB price of the goods could be treated as cum-duty price for the purpose of assessment. It was highlighted that a previous decision in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. v. CC had established that the FOB price of the goods represents the actual price paid or payable by the importer to the exporter for the exported goods, and the assessable value cannot be reduced by considering the cum-duty price. This principle was reiterated in subsequent cases involving the same assessee.

The Tribunal, based on the precedent decisions and consistent legal interpretation, found no fault in the impugned orders and consequently rejected all the appeals. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal principles and decisions in determining the assessable value for the purpose of export duty assessment. The decision provided clarity on the treatment of abatement of duty element from the FOB price of goods, settling the matter in favor of maintaining the FOB price as the basis for assessing export duty without allowing for any reduction based on the duty element. The judgment underscored the significance of following previous rulings to ensure consistency and predictability in legal outcomes, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal system and promoting fairness in trade practices.