TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in export of iron ore fines. The appellant filed the Shipping Bill, which was provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. As per the legal provisions, if the 'Fe' content of the iron ore fines is less than 58%, then the same is classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 26011142, which attracts 'Nil' rate of export duty in terms of Notification No. 15/2016-Cus dated 1st March, 2016. 2.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal : 1997 (89) ELT 19 (SC) had held that purpose of charging of export duty, the assessment of Iron ore for determination of 'Fe' contents shall be made on Wet Metric Tonne (WMT)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have been noticed in the Final Assessment Order. 2.5 On challenging the said order of the adjudicating authority, the appellant filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), wherein he rejected the appeal on the ground that the Shipping Bill was passed on the basis of declarations made by the Appellant/Exporter and since there was no correction in the shipping bill, it is held that the Proper officer has not assessed the shipping bill but accepted the declarations made by the Appellant/Exporter and was never asked for consideration of the methodology for determination of 'Fe' content on WMT basis instead of DMT in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal (supra). 2.6 After a passage of mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsequently, the appellant is required to take the benefit thereof. 4. On the other hand, the ld. A.R. for the Revenue, supported the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that on merit, there is no dispute that the Shipping Bills were required to be assessed being 'Fe' content on the basis of WMT in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal (supra) and to that extent, a Circular No. 4/2012-Cus dated 17.02.2012 has also been issued. 7. A short issue arises in this case as to whether while finalizing the Shipping Bills, no consideration of judicial pronouncements and the circulars cited hereinabove is clerical mistakes/omissions in terms of Section 154 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of TISCO (supra). Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with the situation where there is a clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decision or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at the time of assessing the Bill of Entry and same can be corrected by the proper officer. In these appeals, the proper officer failed to take the cognizance of the decision in the case of TISCO (supra) while assessing the Bills of Entry which can be termed as accidental slip or omission. As per the law dictionary "omission‟ means neglect or failure to perform what the law requires and in this case law requires to assess the Bill of Entry after taking note of the decision of TISCO which was omitted by the proper offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court as an error arising in assessment on account of omission to apply the correct rate of duty. While dealing with the issue the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has observed as under :- "Four types of errors are mentioned in the section for invoking power under it: (1) clerical mistakes (2) arithmetical mistakes (3) errors arising from accidental slips and (4) errors arising from accidental omissions. If any one of the above types of errors has crept in, then the corrective power mentioned in the section can justifiably be used. In this case, the error happened due to the omission to know of the new rates of import duty which has resulted in the assessment made at the first instance. When the error was brought to the notice of the authorities....