In self-assessed exports of iron ore, mixed consignments of fines and lumps are treated as fines. Where no provisional assessment was formally adopted, the declared Fe content and assessable value at the time of export prevail over subsequent BRC or discharge port reports.

[Order per: A.K. JYOTISHI ]

M/s RB Seth Shreeram Narsingdas (hereinafter referred to as appellants) are in appeal against OIO dt.30.05.2014, whereby the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Rs.85,11,972/- along with applicable interest and also imposed equivalent penalty (Impugned Order).

The issue, in brief, is that the appellants are engaged in export of iron ore fines/ lumps and had exported certain consignments during the period 2008-09 to 2011-12. At the time of export, bills were self-assessed declaring certain parameters like Fe percentage, moisture content and unit price. However, later on, when the department felt that these declarations were based on provisional invoice, they asked for final invoices and final analysis report from the exporter to ascertain whether the assessment made under section 17 was proper and correct or not. Thereafter, they scrutinized all the exported bills of entry and thereafter, noted that there are certain discrepancies between what was declared at the time of export and what was noted at port of discharge. Therefore, SCN was issued asking them to explain as to why shipping bills cannot be re-assessed to duty in terms of section 17 of the Customs Act, 1972 , by resorting to the set of facts as contained in final invoice and analytical reports at load/ discharge port and as to why duty cannot be demanded under section 28(4).

The adjudicating authority examined the submissions and, inter alia, held that iron ore fines and iron ore lumps in a mixture are to be subjected to appropriate custom duty under respective tariff items and hence, export goods cannot be treated as iron ore fines alone. On the issue of pending refunds, the Commissioner observed that the refund issue has to be decided by the concerned Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner and did not decide the issue of refund. Insofar as the issue of invocation of extended period, the adjudicating authority observed that department had, based on certain intelligence that the moisture content of the said consignments cannot be uniform at 8%, called for certain documents from exporter concerning the subject transaction and thereafter, only on receipt of the information like final invoice, weight and quality certificate issued at discharge port and chemical examiner’s report, noticed that moisture content, Fe content and particles of over 10mm size were more than what was declared by the exporter at the time of export. Therefore, he held that shipping bills need to be reassessed and the declaration made at the time of export was not true declaration and therefore, extended period is invokable.

Learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that while on merit, most of these issues are settled by this Bench and therefore, the issues are no longer res integra.

On the other hand, learned AR has mainly submitted that in this case, though there is no provisional assessment, the re-assessment has been adopted by the department based on incorrect appreciation of facts and law. For the sake of convenience, he has submitted that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of differential duty broadly on the following three counts.

A) Application of a higher rate of export duty by treating certain quantities of exported iron ore fines as iron ore lumps, thereby, attracting a higher rate of duty.

B) Redetermination of export duty based on Fe content and moisture percentage as determined by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) at the time of export, instead of adopting the parameters determined by the CIQ authorities at the discharge port.

C) Redetermination of export value by adopting the final invoice value and corresponding Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs), in place of the provisional invoice value.

He has further submitted that all these issues have been already examined by this Bench in the case of CC, Visakhapatnam Vs Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt Ltd & ors [Final Order No. A/30491-30506/2025 dt