Case Details: Kai International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Odisha (2025) 29 Centax 177 (Tri.-Cal)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) & K. Anpazhakan, Member (T)
- Shri Indranil Banerjee, Adv., for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Subrata Debnath a/w. Ashish Mishra, Authorized Representatives, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, an exporter of Iron Ore Fines, filed a Certificate of Quality in respect of the exported goods, wherein the iron (Fe) content was certified as 62.22% on a Wet Metric Tonne (WMT) basis, and the moisture content was recorded as 7.24%. The assessee contended that for the purpose of export duty assessment, the Fe content must be determined on a WMT basis, which includes the weight of moisture and other impurities in the total weight. On this basis, the effective Fe content was computed to be below 58%, qualifying the assessee for exemption from export duty under Notification No. 15/2016-Customs, dated 01-03-2016. The customs authorities, however, rejected this computation, asserting that Fe content should be determined on a dry basis, where moisture is excluded, thereby placing the Fe content above 58% and disqualifying the exemption. Challenging this interpretation and the denial of exemption, the assessee filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble CESTAT held that for the purpose of levying export duty, the assessment of Iron Ore Fines must be carried out on a Wet Metric Tonne (WMT) basis and not on a dry basis. The Tribunal clarified that WMT basis entails assessing the Fe content by considering the total weight of the consignment inclusive of impurities and moisture, and not by excluding moisture to calculate the dry weight. Since the Fe content on WMT basis was less than 58% as per the Certificate of Quality, the assessee was held to be rightly entitled to exemption from export duty in terms of Notification No. 15/2016-Customs, dated 01-03-2016.
List of Cases Cited
- Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — Final Order Nos. 76644-76645/2023, dated 15-9-2023 by CESTAT, Kolkata — Relied on [Para 12.1]
- Narbheram Vishram v. Commissioner — Final Order No. 76372/2024, dated 19-7-2024 by CESTAT, Kolkata — Relied on [Para 12.2]
- Union of India v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 9.1]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 4/2012-Cus., dated 17-2-2012 [Para 9.2]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 15/2016-Cus., dated 1-3-2016 [Paras 3, 6, 9, 14]
- Notification No. 27/2011-Cus., dated 1-3-2011 [Para 9]
