2016 (11) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt. Ms. Asmita A Nayak, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER The facts of the case are that the appellants filed Shipping Bill Nos. GP.61 dated 02.03.2011 & GP.68 dated 10.03.2011 for the export of 25285 WMTs of Iron Ore Fines of 62.00% Fe content to a buyer in Korea, being final destination to China totally valued at Rs. 14,72,76,528/- FOB. The Exporter had declared the unit price as US$ 173 DMT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ainst declared unit rate of USD 173 PDMT CFR for Fe content 62.00%, basis in the shipping bills, as per the original contract. Thus it appeared that the unit rate realized is not in tune with the contract and there is no amendment to the original contract. 2.  On adjudication vide order dated 09.12.2011 the adjudicating authority ordered for finalisation of subject shipping bill by adopting .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent have been taken cognizance of by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order passed by him is well reasoned . When the department accepts the BRC, as well as the final invoice of the exporter and has no doubt or dispute that amount other than what was reflected in final invoice was not received by the latter, the BRC has to be given credibility and reliance. This being so we do not find any infir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X