CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I Customs Appeal No. 28471 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.44/2013-VCH dated 24.09.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)

Khatau Narbheram & Co .. APPELLANT (A Unit of Narbheram Vishram)

Po-Barbil, Keomjar, Orissa – 758 035.

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT Visakhapatnam - Customs

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

APPEARANCE:

Ms. Nandita Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri K. Sreenivasa 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/30209/2026 Date of Hearing: 15.12.2025 Date of Decision: 13.04.2026 [ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD]

M/s Khatau Narbheram & Co (hereinafter referred to as appellant) has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 44/2013-VCH dated 24.09.2013 (impugned order), whereby, Learned Commissioner (Appeals)

upheld the Order-in-Original no. 254/2012 dated 31.05.2013.

2. The brief fact is that the appellant exported iron ore fines to China under Shipping Bill dated 06.01.2011. Learned Assessing Officer rejected transaction value under Customs Act 1962 and relied on contemporaneous export data, CRCL test report for Fe content.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) himself recorded violation of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of crucial documents such as CRCL report and contemporaneous export data, yet proceeded to decide the matter on merits, which legally unsustainable. The Appellate Authority erred in holding that there is no power of remand, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Umesh Dhaimode [1998 (98) ELT 584 (SC)], wherein, it was held that Appellate Authority has power to pass such orders as it may deem fit confirming, modifying or annulling with the decision appealed against. Such powers imply power of remand since an order of remand necessarily annuls the decision which is under appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that export duty during the relevant period was ad valorem, hence Fe content and moisture content are irrelevant for valuation. The transaction value declared by the appellant is supported by Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) and contractual terms and cannot be rejected without cogent evidence. It is also submitted that quantity of duty computation should be based on CIQ report at discharge port, as per contractual terms.

5. Whereas, Learned AR reiterates the findings of the impugned order and also submits that declared value was rightly rejected based on contemporaneous export prices, CRCL report collectively determined Fe content and demand of duty has been correctly quantified.

6. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

7. It is an admitted fact that crucial documents such as CRCL report and contemporaneous export data were not supplied to the appellant. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has himself accepted this violation. However, despite such finding he proceeded to decide the matter on merit. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the relevant para of impugned order as thus:

“There is nothing on record to show that there was short shipment as contended by the appellant. The value adopted for finalization was the declared value of the appellant and the same is in alignment with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Contention of the appellant in contesting the CBEC circular No. 18/2008-Cus dated 10.11.2008 for computation of export duty and cess is based on FOB price, which the respondent adopted is just and proper and the same is in tune with the transactional value concept as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Last but not the least, accepting the declared value basing upon contemporaneous export/contract would have been on strong footin