9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as recovered from them at the time of provisional assessment. Since the goods under question were not exported, there is no relevance in bringing into consideration the contractual obligations towards realization of export proceeds, as there are no export proceeds realized for the said 7833 MTs of goods not exported. There is no merit in the present case - the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. - Customs Appeal No.76472 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75246/2023 - Dated:- 18-4-2023 - MR. RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Abhisek Tibrewal, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri M.P.Toppo, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The short question in the present appeal filed by M/s Khatau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 105 degree centigrade apart from physical specification of the export product . 2.1 It is further noted from the appeal papers that the appellants as per their own averment in Para 4 of statement of Facts (Annex.A of the appeal) have stated as under : 4. Provisionally, the duty was paid for 12,000 MT but a total quantity of only 4167 MT was exported under the impugned shipping bill and accordingly the appellant s authorized CHA agent M/s Ripley Co. submitted a refund claim only for the short shipment quantity of 7833 MT based on the mate receipt report and upon realization of all required documents e.g. copy of final invoice, Bank Realization Certificate (BRC), Bill of Lading, discharge port analysis reports, short shipment c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods and that the value of such goods would mean as per their actual condition at the place of exportation. He also indicated in the order that the appellant had not produced any documentary evidence suggesting less realization of amount than what was indicated in the shipping bill and contract. 8. In appeal before this Tribunal, the appellants have furnished a copy of Certificate of Analysis dated 9th October, 2011, issued by Entry Exit Inspection and Quarantine of the People s Republic of China, in respect of the goods exported under cover of shipping bill dated 29th July, 2011. It is observed that the shipping bill declared per unit value of iron ore fines as US$ 161 per MT and there is a categorical assertion in order in original as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er se does not arise. It may be pointed out that the importer paid export duty at a specified rate for the specified quantity of goods under export, and at that very specified rate for the imputed short shipped quantity, they have been refunded the amount of duty, which otherwise was recovered from them at the time of provisional assessment. Since the goods under question were not exported, there is no relevance in bringing into consideration the contractual obligations towards realization of export proceeds, as there are no export proceeds realized for the said 7833 MTs of goods not exported. 11. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the present case and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. (Operative part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
