##PAGE1##

(1)

C/26820/2013 CUSTOMS, EXCI SE AND SERVI CE TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL

REGI ONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Division Bench – Court No. – I

Customs Appeal No. 26820 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.03/2013-VCH dt.13.03.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)

M/ s Kalinga Commercial Corporation Ltd C-112, HIG, Housing Board Colony, Baramunda, ......Appellant Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751 003

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs

Visakhapatnam - CUS ……Respondent

4^th Floor, Customs House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035

Appearance Shri Kishore K. Acharya & Shri Narendra KV Dash, Advocates for the Appellant.

Shri A. Rangadham, AR for the Respondent.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON'BLE MR. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FI NAL ORDER No. A/ 30180/ 2026 Date of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date of Decision: 02.04.2026

[Order per: A.K. JYOTI SHI ]

M/s Kalinga Commercial Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) are in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dt.13.03.2013, whereby, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order passed by the

original adjudicating authority.

2. The issue, in brief, is that the appellant had entered into an agreement with a buyer in China to supply Iron Ore fines of 62.50% fe content at a unit price of USD 136 PDMT FOB. This was in terms of agreement dt.02.08.2010. Since the price declared as well as various other parameters like moisture and fe content were provisional, the assessment of the shipping bills was kept provisional and subsequently, on submission of final commercial invoice, Bank Realization Certificate (BRC), Bill of Lading, Load Port Certificate, etc., the said shipping bills, both dt.07.10.2010, were finalized, whereby, the adjudicating authority ordered for a refund of Rs.2,95,549/-. While resorting to re-assessment, the original assessing authority has

(2)

C/26820/2013 considered the originally declared FOB value of USD 136 PDMT and also fe content of 62.5%, even though the customs house laboratory test report found the same to be 62.78%. Also took into account the actual moisture content as 7.19% as against declared 10%. He also found that there was 7.48% of lumps in the consignment and hence levied higher rate of duty @ 15% advalorem on 2.48% of consignment treating them as lumps after

allowing 5% tolerance in terms of department’s clarification dt.28.01.2011.

3. On adjudication, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that there have been various amendments in contract and certain documents were not brought to the notice of the original assessing authority and therefore, the unilateral declaration of price as USD 111 PDMT is not correct. Moreover, he observed that the appellant has not brought on record any chemical analysis certificate of CIQ received from seller nor submitted such CIQ certificate to the respondent and held that reduction in unit price was done solely on the basis of a letter dt.18.10.2010 of the buyer without observing even the contractual condition as referred above. He also did not agree with the contention that higher rate of duty cannot be charged on certain

consignments of Iron Ore fines as Iron Ore lumps.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant has mainly contested that the assessing officer has not appreciated the fact that after the initial agreement, the contract itself underwent certain changes in terms of certain addendum in view of percentage of fe content of the consignment leading to

reduction in per unit price.

5. Learned AR, on the other hand, has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. The issue to be decided is whether the appellants have received the refund in accordance with proper assessment of their shipping bills, which were initially assessed provisionally or otherwise. We find that in this case though the export had taken place in terms of a contract, wherein, certain terms and conditions were agreed