2025 (11) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case are that the appellant exported 'iron ore fines' to various overseas buyers during the period 2010-11 under various shipping bills and invoices. The FOB value was declared based on the commercial transaction value at the time of export of iron ore fines. However, post-export, the appellant realized some higher foreign exchange than the declared value due to certain changes in moisture content & Fe content of materials for which the final invoice value slightly differs from the assessed value taken for calculation of Customs duty. 3. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Hyderabad initiated investigation into export of iron ore fines made by the appellant during the said period and based on the Report of the DRI, the Revenu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut it was held that the iron ore fines exported by the appellant were liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Act; consequently, an option was given for payment of redemption fine of Rs.14,61,00,000/- in lieu of such confiscation. A penalty of Rs.4,02,224/- was also imposed on the appellant under Section 114A of the Act. 3.3. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the ld. adjudicating authority was required to assess the shipping bills provisionally as the same were to be finalized on the basis of the total realized amount, on which the appellant was liable to pay duty. It is submitted that instead of doing so, the ld. adjudicating authority ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xports Vers. Commr. Cus(Export), Nhava Sheva [2008 (228) E.L.T 545 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (v) Best International Vers. Commissioner of Customs (Sea) Chennai. [2004 (178) E.L.T. 278 (Tri-Chennai)] (vi) Dabur India Limited Vers. Commissioner Customs [Customs Appeal No.75364 of 2025 - Tri-Kolkata] 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue supported the impugned order. 6. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 7. We find that it is a fact on record that initially, the shipping bills had been assessed finally, although the appellant had recovered an excess amount than the FOB value declared while filing the shipping bills. The appellant paid the differential duty, on being pointed out ....