2024 (12) TMI 1469 - AT - Customs

Iron ore fines export duty exemption denied as shipping bill filed before notification issuance date

CESTAT Bangalore held that appellant was not entitled to exemption under Notification 129/2008 dated 07.12.2008 for iron ore fines export. The shipping ... Benefit of exemption Notification issued vide N/N. 129/2008 dated 07.12.2008 to the export of Iron Ore Fines made by the Appellant - shipping bill was filed, and duty was paid before the issuance of the notification - HELD THAT:- As per the decisions relied by Learned Authorised Representative, including the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Narayan Bandekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of. Cus & C.Ex., Goa [2010 (8) TMI 234 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], is held that on a plain reading of Section 51 read with clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 16 of the Customs Act, 1962, the date for determination of duty is the date on which an order was passed under Section 51 by the proper officer and date on which the actual loading of Iron Ore was started is totally irrelevant. Even if the date of Notification and the date on which actual loading of ‘Iron Ore Fines’ was carried out are on 07.12.2008, or date of Notification was prior to 10.12.2008, the date on which vessel left territorial water of India, the benefit of Notification cannot be extended to the appellant, since the shipping bill was filed on 05.12.2008, it was assessed on the same day and the appellant paid export duty amounting to Rs. 73,32,383/- on the very same day. Following the ratio of the judgment in Narayan Bandekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd, relevant date for considering the rate of duty in the present case is 05.12.2008 and appellant is not eligible for the benefit of N/N. 129/2008-Cus dated 7.12.2008. Conclusion - The appellant is not entitled to the exemption benefit under Notification No. 129/2008-Cus, as the relevant date for duty determination was 05.12.2008, prior to the notification date. Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue in this case is whether the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 129/2008-Cus, dated 07.12.2008, should be extended to the export of Iron Ore Fines made by the appellant, despite the fact that the shipping bill was filed, and duty was paid before the issuance of the notification.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The legal framework revolves around the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 16, 50, 51, and 39. Section 16 determines the date for the rate of duty and tariff valuation, which is the date the proper officer permits clearance and loading of goods for exportation. Section 50 involves the entry of goods for exportation, while Section 51 pertains to the clearance of goods for exportation. Section 39 prohibits loading until permitted by the proper officer.The appellant relied on the argument that the date of loading, which coincided with the issuance of the notification, should be considered the relevant date. However, the respondent and the Tribunal referred to several precedents, including decisions from the High Court of Bombay and other CESTAT judgments, which consistently held that the date of the 'Let Export Order' under Section 51 is the relevant date for determining duty rates.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Tribunal interpreted the provisions of the Customs Act to mean that the date on which the 'Let Export Order' is issued is the relevant date for determining the rate of duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the actual loading date or the date of the notification is irrelevant if the 'Let Export Order' was issued before the notification date.Key Evidence and Findings:The appellant's shipping bill was filed, and the duty was paid on 05.12.2008, with the 'Let Export Order' issued on the same day. The notification exempting the duty was issued on 07.12.2008. The Tribunal found that the appellant's reliance on the loading date was misplaced, as the legal framework and precedents clearly established the 'Let Export Order' date as the determinant for duty rates.Application of Law to Facts:The Tribunal applied the established legal principles and precedents to the facts of the case, concluding that since the 'Let Export Order' was issued on 05.12.2008, the appellant was not eligible for the exemption provided by the notification dated 07.12.2008.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The appellant argued that the notification should apply because the loading occurred on the same day as the notification's issuance. However, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, relying on consistent judicial interpretation that the 'Let Export Order' date is the critical factor. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's case was distinguishable from other cases cited by the appellant.Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 129/2008-Cus, as the relevant date for determining the duty rate was 05.12.2008, the date of the 'Let Export Order'.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:'...the date for determination of duty is the date on which an order was passed under Section 51 by the proper officer and date on which the actual loading of Iron Ore was started is totally irrelevant.'Core Principles Established:The core principle established is that for determining the applicable duty rate, the date of the 'Let Export Order' under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, is decisive, not the date of loading or the notification date.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The Tribunal determined that the appellant is not entitled to the exemption benefit under Notification No. 129/2008-Cus, as the relevant date for duty determination was 05.12.2008, prior to the notification date. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.