2022 (8) TMI 75 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds remand order for shipping bills' adjudication on moisture impurity, following SC guidelines.

The Tribunal granted early hearing and upheld the remand order for adjudication of shipping bills regarding moisture as an impurity based on Supreme Court ... Valuation - Calculation of correct Fe content - Iron Ore Fines - HELD THAT:- The matter lies on a very narrow compass inasmuch as, the first appellate authority has only remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision, to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGGARWAL [1995 (8) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT] and also the Board’s Circular No.4/2012-Cus dated 17.02.2012 ibid. Further, in the case of M/S VEDANTA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) , KOLKATA [2022 (8) TMI 11 - CESTAT KOLKATA], this very Bench has also remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal, in so far as valuation is concerned. Since the valuation has to be arrived at based on the Fe content in the Iron Ore Fines exported as per the guidelines in the case of Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal which is the domain of Adjudicating authority and since no such exercise appears to have been done in these cases also, it is deemed proper and appropriate to concur with the remand order of the first appellate authority. There are no justifiable reasons to interfere with the impugned orders since there is no finding on merits given by the First Appellate Authority - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues Involved:Adjudication of shipping bills excluding or including moisture as an impurity based on valuation guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Adjudication of Shipping BillsThe Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT Kolkata, dealt with a batch of early hearing applications filed by the Revenue against Customs Appeal Nos.75455-75467 of 2022. These appeals arose from a common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), GST, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar. The primary issue discussed was the adjudication of shipping bills concerning the inclusion or exclusion of moisture as an impurity. The Revenue's representative highlighted that the key issue for consideration was the treatment of moisture in the shipping bills and its impact on valuation. Reference was made to a previous case involving M/s. Vedanta Ltd., where the Tribunal set aside the valuation and directed a fresh assessment following the guidelines established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal.Issue 2: Hearing and SubmissionsDuring the hearing, both sides presented their arguments. The Revenue's representative emphasized the importance of determining the treatment of moisture in the adjudication process. On the other hand, the Respondent's Advocate had no objections to early hearing and mentioned that the Commissioner(Appeals) had remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh orders in line with the Supreme Court's decision in the Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal case and Circular No.4/2012-Cus dated 17.02.2012.Issue 3: Tribunal's DecisionAfter considering the arguments, the Tribunal decided to grant early hearing and proceeded with the final disposal of the cases with the consent of both parties. The Tribunal noted that the matters were limited in scope as the first appellate authority had remanded the cases for fresh decisions following the Supreme Court's guidelines and the Board's circular. Given the specific focus on valuation based on the Fe content in the Iron Ore Fines exported, the Tribunal concurred with the remand order, emphasizing that the valuation process was within the domain of the adjudicating authority.Issue 4: Dismissal of AppealsUltimately, the Tribunal found no justifiable reasons to interfere with the impugned orders as there were no findings on merits provided by the First Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Department's Appeals were dismissed. As a result, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to address the Customs Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue or the Customs Cross Objections filed by the Respondent-assessee, holding them to be disposed of as well.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the proper adjudication of shipping bills concerning moisture as an impurity, following the guidelines set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal upheld the remand order, emphasizing the importance of valuation based on specific content and dismissed the Department's Appeals due to the lack of findings on merits by the First Appellate Authority.