The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of M/s. AKS Minerals, holding that export duty must be computed based on the dry weight of iron ore when the transaction value and contract are agreed upon dry weight basis, applying the principle from Sesa Goa Ltd.
Appeals filed by the Appellant allowed with consequential relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO.2
Customs Appeal No. 75889 of 2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 319/CUS(Exp)/KOL/(P)/2014 dated 31.03.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Kolkata.)
M/s. AKS Minerals
(13, Pollock Street, Kolkata-700001)
Appellant
VERSUS
Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata
(Customs House, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001)
Respondent With
Customs Appeal No. 75890 of 2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 318/CUS(Exp)/KOL/(P)/2014 dated 31.03.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Kolkata.)
M/s. AKS Minerals
(13, Pollock Street, Kolkata-700001)
Appellant VERSUS
Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata
(Customs House, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001)
Respondent
APPEARANCE :
None for the Appellant Mr. Ashish Misra, Commissioner (AR) & Mr. S. Debnath, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NO.75614-75615/2024
Date of Hearing : 22 February 2024 Date of Decision: 22 February 2024
2
Customs Appeal No. 75889 & 75890 of 2014
PER R. MURALIDHAR:
No one was present on behalf of the Appellant. Since the issue pertains to the year 2014, in the interest of justice, we have taken up the Appeal for disposal.
3
Customs Appeal No. 75889 & 75890 of 2014
DMT only. Even the moisture content tested by the Department has ascertaining that the Iron Ore exported had 9.02%/6.38% moisture content. 4. It is seen from the OIA that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the case law of UOI Vs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal [1997 (89) ELT 19 (SC)].
5. Rebutting the contention of the Revenue, Ld. CA for the Respondent submitted that the reliance placed by the Department on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal (Supra) is mis-placed, in asmuch as the said judgment was delivered in the context of determination of export duty on specific criteria of per metric ton basis, whereas, in the present case, the levy of export duty is on ad valorem basis. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable.
7. The Department has challenged the said observation mainly on the ground that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal (Supra), had observed that wet weight be adopted in contrast to the dry weight of the iron-ore fines as the basis for computing the export duty. However, on going through the said judgment, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the question whether for the quantification of export duty chargeable on the specific criterion of weight as the basis, be on the dry weight or on wet weight of the Iron-ore fines. Needless to say, when the charge of export levy was on specific rate basis, that is on the weight of the Iron Ore, irrespective of its value, then the basis of dry or wet weight, of the goods become relevant for determination of the quantum of the duty. Whereas, in the present case, the duty is levied on the basis of the transaction value agreed between the Respondent and the Overseas purchaser on the criterion of dry weight of iron ore fines. Therefore, the determination of export duty on the basis of dry weight or wet weight, in our opinion, is irrelevant as the duty to be computed on the value of the goods in
4
Customs Appeal No. 75889 & 75890 of 2014
dry weight condition, as agreed by the parties. Therefore, we agree with the contention of the ld. CA for the Respondent that the said judgment is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the result, Revenue’s Appeals filed on this issue is devoid of merit. Accordingly, ld. Commissioner (Appeals’) Order to this extent is upheld. Consequently, Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed.
[ Emphasis supplied]
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.)
Sd/-
(R. Muralidhar)
Member (Judicial)
Sd/(Rajeev Tandon) Member (Technical)
Pooja
2 issues framed by the court
Whether export duty on iron ore must be levied on wet weight or dry weight when the transaction value is based on dry weight.
Whether the Supreme Court decision in UOI Vs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal is applicable to ad valorem duty on iron ore.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CC(Port), Kolkata Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd.Applied¶32
CC(Port), Kolkata Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd.
UOI Vs. Gangadhar Narsingdas AgarwalExplained¶3437
UOI Vs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal [1997 (89) ELT 19 (SC)]
M/s. AKS Minerals
Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata
R. Muralidhar
Rajeev Tandon
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal in a customs matter before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
