TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.03.2007. Thereafter, alleging misdeclaration in the Fe content, proceedings were initiated for demanding differential duty and aggrieved by the order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) as per the order dated 18.03.2008 directed the lower authority to pass speaking order. However, appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the issue on merit and to finalize the issue. Thereafter, Adjudication Authority as per the Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2009 finalised the provisional assessments confirming differential duty. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal and this Tribunal as per Final Order No. 1220/2009 dated 18.09.2009 remanded the matter for the consideration of Commissioner (Appeals) as two parallel proceedings should not be conducted on the very same issue. On remand, Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- as pre-deposit. When a petition was filed for modification of the said order, it was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 14.08.2013. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e based upon the average of the two test reports be accepted for the purposes of arriving at the assessable value. ........ (f) The Custom Houses will ensure that the shipping bills are finally assessed within 30 days of the receipt of all documents. However, this time limit shall not apply to cases under investigation for related party transactions, which shall be governed by the circular relating to investigations by SVBs." 4. Learned Counsel further submits that the issue is no more res integra and considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 19 (S.C) and held that - "3. By Notification No. GSR 1152, dated 24th July, 1987 issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, the Government exempted iron ore fines falling under Item 29 of the Second Schedule to the Tariff Act when exported out of India from so much of the duty leviable thereon as is in excess of Rs. 3/- per metric ton, where the iron content in the iron ore fines was below 62% and where it exceeds 62% so much of the duty as is in excess of Rs. 4/- per metric ton. By another Notification dated 31st August, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntage can be determined separating the iron content from the rest of the impurities inclusive of moisture and thereafter ascertain in which category the lumpy iron ore would fall for the purposes of charging duty under the aforesaid Notifications. This view which the learned Single Judge took and which came to be affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court appears to us to be the correct view to take, for the reason that if the percentage of iron content is determined after ignoring the moisture the percentage would not be relatable to the lumpy iron ore weighed at the relevant point of time for the purposes of charging duty. We, therefore, do not think that the High Court committed any mistake in the view it took. Even if two views were possible the view taken by the High Court being a plausible one would not call for intervention by this Court." 5. Learned Counsel further submits that there is undue delay on the part of the Revenue to conduct examination of the goods and as held by this Tribunal in the matter of Alpine International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 331 (Tri.-Bang.), where Tribunal held as follows: "4. I heard both sides,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t as reproduced herein above cannot be relied upon by the Revenue. 10. We find that this Bench in the case of Taurion Iron & Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had an occasion to consider an identical issue. We find that the paragraph 6 of the said order is very relevant for the purpose of the case before us, hence we reproduce the same. "We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The appellants have stated that the sample was not taken in accordance with the Public Notice. On the other hand, the Revenue has contended that they would not be obliged to go by the test report submitted by the appellant as well as the test report of the samples at the destination Port. Now in the present case, concessional rate of duty is available only when the iron content is less 62%, According to the appellant the said percentage is less than 62%......" ....................... In terms of the destination port certificate the iron content is less than 62%. It is seen that in the test report given by the destination Port as well as by M/s. Mitra S.K. Pvt. Ltd., the Chemical composition in terms of iron and other impurities is also given. Particularly, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeting standards cannot be treated as the certificate issued by an accredited lab since only one of their lab was accredited. The same was also stated to have been issued by an authorised signatory-independent surveyor at the loading port. Accordingly, it can by no stretch of imagination be considered as the certificate issued by the accredited lab as stated by them. Further, the certificate of quality purported to have been issued for vessel. M. V. J. Friend pertaining to shipping bill No. 0428/2007 dated 8-52007 was on the basis of samples drawn by their representative between 8-5-2007 to 12-5-2007 and the certificate is dated 15-52007. Similarly in the purported certificate of analysis dated 29-52007 pertaining to 486/18.05.2007 the samples were allegedly drawn by their representative from 21-5-2007 to 27-5-2007. One does not need to do research to conclude that the analysis report of samples allegedly drawn at Mangalore port was not done by their purportedly accredited Central lab. Further, the sampling was stated to have been done by the representatives of surveyors. No Customs officer was associated with such sampling and it is not known what procedure had been adopted to dra....