2012 (11) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orted 22,000 Mts. of Iron Ore fines declaring iron content below 62% after drawing samples as per procedure vide S.B. No. 898 dated 20-8-2007. The Shipping Bills assessed provisionally and they paid export duty at Rs. 50/- PMT with Cess Rs. 1/- PMT as per Notification No. 62/2007 dated 3-5-2007. The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Cochin and test result revealed that the iron content of the sample was 62.1%. As the exporter declared the iron content of the exported Iron Ore fines was 62% and below and the test revealed 62.1%, the authorities came to the conclusion that the exporter has misdeclared the iron content at the time of export and short paid export duty at Rs. 50/- PMT - Cess Rs. 1/- PMT, instead of Rs.300/- PMT + Cess Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter testing on account of the fact that the samples were in torn condition stating that the request for testing of the duplicate sample needs to be approved by the Commissioner of Customs and it was also informed by the CRCL, New Delhi that the sample was received by them in torn condition. Therefore, the sample appears to have been damaged in transit. 4. On receipt of the said communication the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore arrived at the conclusion that since the sample was received back in torn condition, there was no guarantee that it was not substituted or altered and therefore, took a decision not to send the same for testing after re-sealing and decided the issue based on the test report furnished by the Chemical Examine....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on content with 62%, if it exceeds 62% it is Rs. 300/- PMT. Now the difference which sought to be made out is hardly 0.1%. If a provision is made for human error this 0.1% is negligent. That apart when a request is made challenging the report authorities accepted the request and sent it to Delhi for retesting. Assuming that while sending the sample they sent it well secured and that it was torn during transit they could very well send one more sample. It is not necessary that they should send back the torn sample when they received from Delhi. Even otherwise in the facts of this case we are satisfied this was not a case where proceedings should have initiated on the basis of difference in Iron Ore content by 0.1%. That does not disclose tha....