Legal principle

A legal ground based on facts already on record is not 'additional evidence' under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, there can be no estoppel against the correct application of a statutory provision, and the Fe content of iron ore for export duty must be determined on WMT (moisture-inclusive) basis irrespective of DMT-based contractual pricing.

Court decision

The Tribunal held that the appellant's contention was a legal ground based on the existing record and could not be equated with production of additional evidence under Rule 5; that Section 128A(2) permits raising a ground not specified in the memorandum of appeal where the omission was not wilful or unreasonable; and that acceptance of the proposed finalization or waiver of personal hearing creates no estoppel against the correct application of a statutory provision. On merits, following Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal and Circular No. 4/2012-Cus, it held Fe content must be assessed on WMT basis for export duty, and that DMT contractual pricing operates in a different field from tariff classification. The common impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31.07.2019 and the final assessment orders were set aside and the matters remanded to the Adjudicating Authority with directions; the appeals were allowed by way of remand in favour of the appellant.

Facts

M/s Rungta Mines Ltd. exported consignments of Iron Ore Fines through Gangavaram Port under three Shipping Bills, with assessments initially made provisional pending test reports and final documents. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner finalized the provisional assessments on the basis of chemical examination reports by treating the Fe content on Dry Metric Ton (DMT) basis, and as the Fe content exceeded 58%, the goods attracted the higher rate of export duty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) declined to examine the appellant's contention that Fe content should be computed on Wet Metric Ton (WMT) basis, observing that the appellant had accepted the proposed finalization and waived personal hearing, and rejected all three appeals relying on Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 as involving additional evidence.

Key provisions

• Rule 5, Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 — Production of additional evidence before the [Commissioner] (Appeals)
• Section 128A(2), Customs Act, 1962 — Procedure in appeal