The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside valuation of iron ore and noted that inordinate delay in testing sample is virtually suicidal to outcome of test results.
Dispute in the present appeal concerned the ‘Fe’ content in iron ore fines exported vide the above referred Shipping Bill and the consequent determination of value for purposes of levy of export duty. The appellant filed the Shipping Bill intimating the iron content therein as 57.30% and moisture content as 8.98%.
The proper officer had finalised the assessment, based on the test report of the CRCL, which had determined the iron content as 62.4% and moisture content as 5.5%, thereby denying the benefit of NIL rate of Customs export duty. The appellant therefore states that the valuation of export consignment was worked out ignoring the actual monetary value received as per the BRC and an export duty of 30% was confirmed by the department.
The appellant argued that the CRCL report is unacceptable as to be the basis for determining the value of the iron ore fines. Another ground for which they hold the CRCL report as non-acceptable is for the fact that despite the said report being available and generated in 2017, yet the same was not provided to the appellant till the second round of litigation.
The claim being that they had been denied an opportunity to prefer an appeal and argue their case against the said report for retesting of the samples. The appellant, therefore contended that for this reason alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the relied upon report is nothing short of being a fallacy.
The Authorised Representative for the department supported the order in appeal and points out that the iron content being over 62%, (62.4% to be precise) on Dry Weight basis and moisture content being 5.5% (that is more than 58% of iron content), the tariff entry for export goods automatically changed from RITC 26011142 (iron ore fines with a Fe content 55 to 58%) to RITC26011131.
A Coram comprising Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Rajeev Tandon, Member (Technical) observed that “We note that even in the present case, there was inordinate delay in testing the samples which is virtually suicidal to the outcome of the test results. We find no legal substance in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and are of the view that the Commissioner was in error of law in passing the impugned judgement. We therefore set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
