2018 (9) TMI 764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellant None for the respondent ORDER [Order per: P.V. Subba Rao.] 1. This appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.05/2009 (G) (D) Cus, dated 11.05.2009. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. Heard learned departmental representative and perused the records. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent exported iron ore fines fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the exporter. 3. Revenue was aggrieved by this order and filed an appeal before the first appellate authority who rejected the appeal. The present appeal is against this impugned Order-in-Appeal on the grounds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in the case of Priya Blue Industries Vs Commissioner of Customs [2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC)] held that an order of assessment in the bill of entry or shipp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r has wrongly sanctioned the refund without the assessment being challenged or reviewed. It is his further submission that although the shipping bills mention the Fe content in iron ore as below 62% and the same has been reconfirmed by the chemical examiner's test report, the duty was paid at a higher rate of Rs. 300/MT by the exporters themselves and without any protest. Therefore, their assessme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ping bill. On the other hand, if the assessment is taken to be final, the calculation of the duty is certainly wrong because the rate of duty on iron ore with Fe content less than 62% was only Rs. 50/MT and not Rs. 300/MT. It was the responsibility of the assessing officer to correctly assess the export duty payable and he made a mistake. The customs officers are well within their powers to correc....