2025 (3) TMI 1195 - AT - Customs

Provisional customs assessment corrected under s.154 for Fe content recalculation on WMT, consequential notification benefit

CESTAT KOLKATA (AT) allowed the appeal, holding the finalization of provisional assessment was vitiated by an accidental omission deserving rectification ... Denial of rectification of error for finalization of assessment of Shipping Bill under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 - rejection solely on the ground that no arithmetical or clerical errors/mistakes have been noticed in the Final Assessment Order - HELD THAT:- It is an error arose from the accidental omissions on the part of the assessing officer while finalizing the Shipping Bills under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Sesa Goa Limited [2010 (9) TMI 948 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Consequently, finalization of the assessment done by the adjudicating authority for determining of the “Fe” content on DMT instead of WMT basis, is bad in law. Therefore, the said omission is required to be rectified by the adjudicating authority and the consequential benefit is to be given to the appellant by rectifying the omission under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, in the case of M/s Vedanta Limited [2023 (8) TMI 364 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], it is held that the error is perceived from the omission or the accidental slip and therefore, the word “omission” should not be given a restrictive meaning but should be expanded to imbibe within itself an error occurred because of such omission and the same is required to be rectified. The adjudicating authority is directed to rectify the finalization of provisional assessment of shipping bills for the purposes of calculation of “Fe” content on WMT basis in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal [1995 (8) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT] and thereafter, to pass a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Conclusion - The assessment should be corrected to reflect the 'Fe' content on a WMT basis, and the adjudicating authority was directed to pass a speaking order within one month, providing the appellant with the appropriate relief under the applicable notification. Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered was whether the rectification of the assessment of Shipping Bills under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, was warranted due to the alleged error in determining the 'Fe' content of iron ore fines on a Dry Metric Tonne (DMT) basis instead of a Wet Metric Tonne (WMT) basis. This involved examining whether the error constituted a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an accidental slip or omission that could be corrected under Section 154.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents:The legal framework involved Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. The precedents considered included the Supreme Court's decision in UOI v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal, which established that the 'Fe' content for export duty purposes should be assessed on a WMT basis. The Tribunal also referenced the Circular No. 4/2012-Cus and the decisions of the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts affirming the WMT basis for assessment.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Tribunal interpreted Section 154 as applicable to errors arising from accidental omissions, which include the failure to apply judicial pronouncements and circulars during the assessment process. The Tribunal emphasized that the omission to consider the Supreme Court's decision and relevant circulars constituted an error that could be rectified under Section 154.Key evidence and findings:The Tribunal found that the proper officer finalized the assessment of the Shipping Bills on a DMT basis without considering the Supreme Court's ruling or the circular directing assessment on a WMT basis. The appellant's request for rectification was initially denied on the grounds that no clerical or arithmetical errors were apparent in the final assessment order.Application of law to facts:The Tribunal applied the legal principles from Section 154 and relevant case law to determine that the failure to assess the 'Fe' content on a WMT basis was an error arising from an accidental omission. This error warranted rectification under Section 154, as it did not involve a substantive change to the assessment but rather corrected the method of calculation in line with established legal standards.Treatment of competing arguments:The Tribunal addressed the arguments from the respondent that the assessment was based on the appellant's declarations and that the appellant had not protested the duty assessment. The Tribunal found these arguments unpersuasive, emphasizing that the duty of the assessing officer included applying the correct legal standards, irrespective of the appellant's declarations.Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the assessment on a DMT basis was incorrect and required rectification to a WMT basis under Section 154. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to rectify the assessment and provide the appellant with the consequential benefits.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that 'it is an error arose from accidental omissions on the part of the assessing officer under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962.' This established the principle that failures to apply relevant judicial decisions and circulars during assessments constitute errors that can be rectified under Section 154.The Tribunal further held that 'the word 'omission' should not be given a restrictive meaning but should be expanded to imbibe within itself an error occurred because of such omission.' This broad interpretation of 'omission' under Section 154 allows for corrections that align assessments with legal requirements.The final determination was that the assessment should be corrected to reflect the 'Fe' content on a WMT basis, and the adjudicating authority was directed to pass a speaking order within one month, providing the appellant with the appropriate relief under the applicable notification.