Legal principle

There can be no estoppel against the statute — mere acceptance of an assessment cannot validate it where it is contrary to the statutory tariff, binding precedents and the Board's Circular, and a legal question as to correct classification and rate of duty may be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.

Court decision

The Tribunal allowed all three appeals by way of remand in favour of the appellant: it held that for shipping bills filed prior to 01.05.2022, the Fe content of the exported Iron Ore Fines must be determined on WMT basis; held the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the contention under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982; set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal; and directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Authority to re-determine Fe content on WMT basis after taking into account the moisture percentage in the relevant test reports and applying the settled formula, with consequential re-classification, re-assessment and relief including refund, if otherwise admissible.

Facts

M/s Rungta Mines Ltd. filed three customs appeals against a common Order-in-Appeal dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam, concerning the classification and assessment of Iron Ore Fines exported by it. The short issue was whether, for determining tariff classification and the rate of export duty, the iron (Fe) content was to be calculated on Wet Metric Ton (WMT) basis or Dry Metric Ton (DMT) basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's contention that Fe content be determined on WMT basis, finding that the appellant had accepted the assessments without objection, and invoked Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 against raising the plea at the appellate stage.

Key provisions

• Rule 5, Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 — Production of additional evidence before the [Commissioner] (Appeals)