9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99.84 being the excess export duty recovered from the petitioners who are the respondents herein. 2. very limited controversy has been raised by the appellants in this appeal, and that too in a half-hearted manner. The relevant facts can be shortly stated : The petitioners are the members of a Hindu undivided family and carried on business as exporters of lumpy iron ore and iron ore fines in the name and style of Messrs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal. By a Notification dated 2nd August 1966 Items 28 and 29 were produced in the Second Schedule to the Tariff Act, 1934, whereby customs duty at the rate of Rs. 10/- per metric tonne was levied on the exports of lumpy iron ore and customs duty at Rs. 5/- per metric tonne levied on, the exports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iron ore and 29,480.80 tonnes of iron ore fines between August 1970 and December 1972 under ten shipments. The Customs Authorities were duly intimated by the petitioners before the actual export of the said goods was made. It is common ground that the iron ore fines as well as lumpy iron ore exported by the petitioners was in a moist condition at the time when it was exported, namely, put on board the vessels concerned for being exported. The petitioners paid the export duty on the iron ore fines exported by them on the footing of the iron ore content thereof being over 62 per cent which was the percentage of iron ore content as determined by Italab (Goa) Pvt. Ltd. on analysis of samples drawn at the time of the different shipments concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund made by the petitioners came to an aggregate amount of Rs. 3,17,599.84. These refund applications were dismissed by the Assistant Collector of Customs who took the view that to accept the claim made by the petitioners would lead to the absurd conclusion that the contents of iron ore depend upon the moisture. The appeals preferred by the petitioners met with no better fate and ultimately the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition. 3. Before going into the contentions of Mr. Rege, learned Counsel for the appellants, it must be noticed that there is no dispute 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fact explained in a Letter dated 23rd June 1978 addressed by Toman Trading Co. Ltd., a copy of which is at Exh. 'A' to the petition. It appears that following this very method, Italab (Goa) Pvt. Ltd. have issued certificates as to the iron content in the moist iron ore fines and moist lumpy iron ores exported by the petitioners, and these certificates show that the iron content in these iron ores was to the extent of about 57 per cent. Merely because in respect of moist iron ore the iron content cannot be determined directly by physical analysis this cannot lead to 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
