CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I Customs Appeal No. 20487 of 2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.164/2014 – VCH dated 04.12.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)

Global Associates .. APPELLANT Hotel Karrow Building, Main Road P.O, Barbil Dist, Keonjhar, Odisha – 758 035.

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT Visakhapatnam – Customs

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

WITH Customs Appeal No. 20573 of 2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.175/2014 – VCH dated 18.12.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)

Global Associates .. APPELLANT Hotel Karrow Building, Main Road P.O, Barbil Dist, Keonjhar, Odisha – 758 035.

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT Visakhapatnam – Customs

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

AND Customs Appeal No. 30310 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-039-16-17 dated 15.07.2016 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)

Global Associates .. APPELLANT Hotel Karrow Building, Main Road P.O, Barbil Dist, Keonjhar, Odisha – 758 035.

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT Visakhapatnam – Customs

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

APPEARANCE:

Ms. Nanditha Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri K. Raji Reddy, Authorized Representative for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No. A/30098-30100/2026 Date of Hearing: 10.11.2025 Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 [ORDER PER: A.K. JYOTISHI]

M/s Global Associates (hereinafter referred to as appellant) are in appeal against certain orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein, the order passed by the Original Authority has been upheld. The appellants are exporter of iron ore fines and were engaged in exporting the same to China. During the period August 2011, the Department re-assessed the duty leading to confirmation of differential demand and also sanctioned lesser refund.

2. The brief facts of the case, appeal wise, are as under:

Appeal No. C/20487/2015 The appellant had exported 44000 MT of iron ore fines with 65% FE content at USD 164 on FOB basis. The assessment was kept provisional at the time of export and was finalized subsequently by taking into account the Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC). This final assessment led to demand of differential export duty of Rs. 38,38,694/-.

The appellant exported iron ore fines with 62% FE content at USD 155 on FOB basis. The assessment was kept provisional and subsequently taking into account the final invoice with quantity 61585 MT and value of export as

155 USD PMT, a refund order of Rs. 3,75,713/- was ordered.

Appeal No. C/30310/2017 In this case, under similar facts, the Adjudicating Authority has re-

assessed the duty leviable basing on contemporaneous price of Rs. 129.50 USD per MT as against the price of 113 USD per MT at the time of export.

3. The Learned Advocate for the appellants has mainly contested that the issued based on which the demand have been confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority or short refund has been made by the Original Adjudicating Authority and subsequently upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), are no longer res-integra in view of various decisions including the decision of this Bench. He further, submits that the issues involved in all these three appeals are as under:

a) Rejection of refund and re-determination of moisture content relying on test reports by Chemical Laboratory of the Customs House.

b) Rejection and re-determination of transaction value based on contemporaneous exports in terms of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

c) Imposition of basic Customs duty @ 15% ad valorem vide Notification No.56/2010-Cus on Iron ore lumps (more than