9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt works out to 57.48% which is less than 58%, therefore, it is held that the appellant is not liable to pay any duty on the export of the said consignment treating as single consignment.
Conclusion - The Fe content of iron ore should be calculated on a WMT basis, considering the condition of the goods at the time of export.
The impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the appellants - Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g under CTH 2601 1149. The matter was adjudicated. It was held that the appellant had splitted one consignment into three Shipping Bills, therefore, they are liable to pay differential duty. Accordingly, the matter was adjudicated classifying the same under CTH 2601 1149 and demanded differential duty and penalties on both the appellants were imposed. Against the said order, the appellants are before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants appeared before us and submitted that the calculation of Fe content on Dry MT is patently perverse and ex facie illegal in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsinghdas Aggarwal [1997 (89) E.L.T. 19 (SC)] wherein it has been held that classification of iron ore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uncements and statutory provisions, the Fe content in respect of impugned consignment be calculated on WMT, the same works out to 57.48% which is less than 58%, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any Customs duty on their consignment. 7. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar and Brother Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Export) and Ors. reported in MANU/MH/3444/2022. 8. On the other hand, the Ld.AR for the department reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 9. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. 10. We find that in this case, the allegation against the appellant is that the appellant has artificially splitted one consignment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dated 24.03.2021 56.70% 16. All other reports indicate that the Fe content was less than 58%. Thus, we observe that the main issue to be decided is whether the Fe content is to be determined on Wet Metric Ton basis or Dry Metric Ton basis. Revenue's case is entirely based on the CRCI, report dated 15.01.2021, wherein Fe content was found to be 58.89% on Dry Metric Ton basis, le after removing the moisture and not on "as is"/ "Wet Metric ton" basis. We find that the adjudicating authority has given a clear finding on this issue. He has relied upon the Board Circular No. 04/2012-Cus dated 17th February, 2012 states that for the purposes of charging export duty, the Fe (Iron) content in the Iron Ore Fines has to be det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute that the lumpy iron ore and iron ore fines exported by the petitioners was in a moist condition at the time when it was exported. Thus, what the petitioners exported was moist lumpy iron ore and moist iron ore fines. 4. It is also undisputed that the rate of customs duty has to be calculated on the basis of the goods being in such condition as they were in at the time of export, Thus, it is an undisputed position that the claim for partial exemption from customs duty made by the petitioners the present case has to be determined on the footing of the goods exported being moist iron ore fines and moist lumpy iron ores." 5. Now, the only submission urged by Mr. Rege, learned Counsel for the appellants was that it is not possible b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the result that the iron ore content cannot be determined at all or that the petitioners should be deprived of their just claim on that footing which is totally unwarranted by law. The submission of Mr. Rege must, therefore, fail." 18. Circular No. 04/2012-Cus dated 17.02.2012 was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (as it was known then), wherein it was specifically provided that the net Fe content for the purpose of charging export duty is to be determined on Wet Metric Ton basis. The relevant paragraph of the Circular is reproduced for reference: "3. In the light of the observation by the Apex Court that export duty is chargeable according to Fe contents, and to maintain uniformity all over the custom houses, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
