TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whereas in other appeals, only the issue of charging higher rate of duty on iron ore lump is involved. 2. We find that Commissioner (Appeals) has given marginal relief in so far as allowing them the deduction of the penalty amount from transaction value on re-determination, but otherwise upheld the application of higher basic customs duty on iron ore lumps in excess of 5% @ 10%. The short question in this appeal is whether the Department is right in enhancing the declared transaction value based on contemporaneous export for the purpose of export duty or otherwise and also whether the Department is right in applying the higher customs duty @ 15% in respect of lumps component of the ore, which has been exported without segregating the same into ores fines and lumps. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the entire factual matrix is similar to the order passed by this Bench in the case of Daksh Minerals Vs CCT, Guntur-GST [2024 (5) TMI 1155 - CESTAT-Hyd] in so far as segregation of iron ore fine into iron ore lumps and iron ore fine by the Department for the purpose of charging duty. This judgment has already held that there cannot be any artificial segregation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax, Bhubaneswar-I [2014 (4) TMI 658 - CESTAT, Kolkata] 6. Learned Advocate, further submits that as is apparent from the order whereby the export shipping bills were finalised, at para 9 of the order, they have merely referred to certain export values in respect of certain exporters without examining their contract, terms and conditions, commercial volume of export, country of import, port of export etc. Therefore, on that count also the contemporaneous value could not have been taken for determining the value. Learned Advocate further states that even for re-determination of value, there is no compliance with the Rule 4 of Export Valuation Rules as nothing is on record that they have actually complied with all the provisions, including adjustment required, before they have applied the said value for determining export duty. Order-in-Original at para 39 made all calculations of re-determined assessable value irrespective of whether it is consistent with Rule 4 or otherwise. 7. There is no dispute, as regards the value declared at the time of export, which was provisionally assessed and the realisation thereof, which in fact is less than the value declared though the duty has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Vs CCT, Final Order No. 30358/2023 dated 24.08.2023 and CC (Export), Goa Vs VGM Exports [2013 (291) ELT 572 (Tri-Mum)] are relevant in this case. The bonafide of BRCs were not denied and therefore once the BRC has been accepted as the amount actually received by the appellant for said exports, the same has to be accepted as declared value in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, read with Rule 3(1) of the Valuation Rules. In so far as, applying the contemporaneous export value, we find that Department has redetermined the price at a rate of US$ 117 by relying on shipping bill in respect of one exporter namely Sri Sainath, where the unit price declared was ranging from US$ 115 to 119 in respect of Iron Ore containing 58% Fe content. We find that these are the shipping bills filed on 10.01.2011 and 12.11.2010 whereas the shipping bills filed by the appellant have been filed on 21.09.2010. 12. Rule 4(1) of the Export Valuation Rules requires that the value of the goods for the purpose of charging export duty shall be based on transaction value of goods like kind and quality exported at or about the same time to other buyers to the same destination country of importation or in i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, the demand confirmed and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable on this ground. In so far as re- determination of value is concerned, while the department has argued that exporter has not contested the same, the learned Advocate has contested that lower authorities have disregarded the transaction value or the price of Iron Ore exported as is evident from the invoices and corroborated by bank realization certificate dt.07.02.2011. They have also relied on certain Board Circulars viz., No. 18/2008-CUS dt.11.10.2008 and No. 37/2007 dt.09.10.2007, which have clarified that transaction value is the primary basis for valuation of export goods and the method specified under Rule 3 will be applicable. Only in the case where transaction value is not accepted, the valuation of export goods shall be done by application of Rule 4 to Rule 6. They have also relied on the judgment in the case of CC (Exports), Goa vs VGM Exports [2013 (291) ELT 572 (Tri-Mum)], wherein it has been held that the price realized by them as per final invoice and as per bank realization certificate and that it is the transaction value on which duty liability has to be discharged. We find that t....