2018 (7) TMI 1751 - AT - Customs

Valutaion - export of iron ore fines - valuation done on the basis of Fe content - appellant declared Fe content as 61.5% whereas on test the Fe content was found to be 62.32% - demand of differential duty alongwith Interest - Held that - It is clear from the records, the samples when tested by Deputy Chief Chemist, indicated a Fe content of 62.32 %. The re-test which was sought by the appellant by CRCL Delhi also indicated of 62.2 percent - The findings of the First Appellate Authority on this point are correct. Nothing survives in this case as re-test of Fe content, is indicating Fe content as more than 62% - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Export of iron ore fines with declared Fe content.
2. Discrepancy in Fe content test results.
3. Appellant's request for re-test and subsequent findings.
4. Appeal against Order-in-Original and First Appellate Authority's decision.
5. Arguments presented by the appellant and the Departmental Representative.
6. Analysis of test results and legal precedents cited.
7. Final decision and reasoning.

Analysis:

1. The case involves the export of iron ore fines with declared Fe content, where the appellant exported 16,500 MT of iron ore fines declaring Fe content as 61.5% under Shipping Bills. Provisional assessment was done, and duty was paid subject to test results of samples with a bank guarantee for differential duty under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. A discrepancy arose in the Fe content test results, with the initial test showing 62.32%, leading to a demand for differential duty payment. The appellant requested a re-test by an independent third-party laboratory, which showed a lower Fe content of 60.16%. Subsequently, the Central Revenues Control Laboratory conducted a re-test and found Fe content as 62.2%, resulting in a demand for higher duty payment and interest.

3. The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Original, and the First Appellate Authority upheld the decision, leading to a further appeal. The appellant argued that the delay in re-testing by the CRCL could have affected the Fe content results, citing various case laws to support their position.

4. The appellant's counsel emphasized the discrepancies in test results and presented evidence from reputed laboratories and email correspondence indicating lower Fe content. The Departmental Representative supported the findings of the lower authorities.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and test results, noting that both the Deputy Chief Chemist and the CRCL confirmed Fe content above 62%. The Tribunal highlighted that the re-test results were binding, and the appellant's reliance on private lab reports was not acceptable. The Tribunal also dismissed the appellant's argument regarding transaction value as supplementary evidence.

6. Citing the re-test results and the acceptance of the retest request by the lower authorities, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's case did not stand as the re-test results consistently showed Fe content above 62%, rendering the appellant's arguments and legal precedents cited ineffective.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal based on the conclusive re-test results and the legal principles governing the assessment of customs duty, as per Notification No. 62/2007-Cus. The Tribunal's decision was based on the binding nature of the CRCL re-test results and the lack of substantive evidence to challenge the findings.