Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1016 - AT - CustomsIssues Involved: 1. Dispute over moisture content in exported Iron Ore. 2. Determination of transaction value for export duty purposes. Summary: 1. Dispute over moisture content in exported Iron Ore: The appellants exported Iron Ore Fine with a specified Fe content of 63.5% and a maximum moisture content of 10%. The Iron Ore consignments were provisionally cleared for export and tested at the load port by CRCL and at the port of discharge by CIQ. CRCL reported moisture content between 4.20% to 6.20%, while CIQ reported 6.48% to 10.13%. The Revenue finalized the assessment based on CRCL's report, resulting in the appellant receiving a lesser refund than if CIQ's report was considered. The appellants argued that the contract specified CIQ's analysis at the port of discharge as final and relied on CBIC Circular No. 12/2014-CUS, which supports using the discharge port test report for final valuation. 2. Determination of transaction value for export duty purposes: The appellants contended that the transaction value should be based on the final invoice raised according to CIQ's moisture content analysis at the port of discharge. The Revenue did not dispute the per tonne USD value but argued that the actual DMT of Iron Ore exported would be higher due to lesser moisture content as per CRCL's report. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the transaction value or the per MT price. The appellants had billed and realized payment based on CIQ's analysis, consistent with the contract and CBIC Circular No. 12/2014-CUS. The Tribunal found no evidence of mis-declaration of value and concluded that the transaction value should be accepted as per the appellants' invoices and BRC. Judgment: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders. It held that the transaction value based on CIQ's analysis at the port of discharge should be accepted, and the appellants are entitled to consequential reliefs as per law. The case law of Steer Overseas Pvt Ltd. was distinguished as it involved different circumstances. Order Pronounced in open court on 21.06.2024.
|