Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 728 - CESTAT HYDERABADDemand of differential Customs duty based on the Fe content of iron ore fine - Export of Iron Ore Fines - reliability on test reports - Benefit of N/N. 62/2007-Cus, dated 03.05.2007 - appellant declared the iron content in their Iron ore fines as below 62%, however the test report declared the Fe content in the iron ore as 62.91% - CBEC Circular No. 4/2012-Cus, datd 17.02.2012 - HELD THAT:- This is an unusual case in which there are three test reports indicating different levels of iron content. None of the three test reports are perfect. The test reports produced by the appellant are detailed and elaborate and indicate Fe content of below 62%. However, the samples were collected behind the back of the Customs Officers. Therefore, there is always a doubt as to how the samples were drawn. The test reports are as good as samples drawn. One cannot be termed a “diabetic or HIV positive” based on a blood test unless it is certain that it was his blood which was tested and not the blood of anybody else - Similarly, the test reports cannot be relied upon unless the samples were drawn authentically from the export goods. In this respect, the only authentic sample which was drawn was sent to the Chemical Examiner because it was drawn in the presence of Customs Officers and Exporter and signed by both the parties. Further, the test report of the Chemical Examiner or the Chief Chemist cannot be brushed aside in favour of reports of private persons. None of the three test reports can be relied upon. Usually, any declaration made in the import/export documents are accepted unless there is evidence to the contrary. The department could not sufficiently establish that the declaration made by the appellant in the shipping bill that the Fe content of iron ore fine was below 62% was incorrect - the confirmation of differential duty demand by the Asst. Commissioner and its affirmation by the impugned order are not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|