Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs S.M. Niryat Pvt. Ltd (Orissa High Court)
Conclusion: Merely on the premise of mixing of the cargo, post the issuance of the let export order could not justify the claim for demand of duty on the entire lot, when there was nothing contrary to hold Fe% being more than the dutiable threshold, when arrived at on WMT basis.
Held: In the instant case, the question arose for consideration was whether Tribunal was correct in holding that the net Fe content of Iron Ore Fines for the purpose of levy of Customs duty should be determined on WMT basis applying the conversion formula, when the emergence of formula for such conversion had no statutory basis. CESTAT had held “that merely on the premise of mixing of the cargo, post the issuance of the let export order could not justify the claim for demand of duty on the entire lot, when there was nothing contrary to hold Fe% being more than the dutiable threshold, when arrived at on WMT basis. For the reason there was no merit in the Adjudicating Authority, imposing penalty under Section 114AA on the respondents herein. Moreover, there was no discussion in the order passed by Commissioner, with regard to justification for imposition of such a penalty on the respondents. Respondent submitted that the questions of law as posed by the appellant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case were no more res integra by virtue of judgment passed in OTAPL Nos.42 & 31 of 2025 respectively in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar Vs. M/s. Chamong Tee Exports Pvt. Ltd., wherein it had been held that “Fe” content in Iron Ore Fines (IOF) was to be determined on the basis of “Wet Metric Ton” (WMT) but not “Dry Metric Ton” (DMT). It was held that since there was no substantial questions of law in the instant appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
