9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 2012 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of Refund claim for extra duty - valuation of the exported Iron ore Fines - export of different quantities of iron ore in bulk at different rates per Dry Metric Ton (DMT) based on specific chemical composition size and moisture content - assessment has been undertaken without following the Circular No. 12/2014-Customs - HELD THAT - We observe that similar view has been taken by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Limited v. Commissioner 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT (LB) wherein it has been categorically held that unless the assessment order is challenged no consequential effect can be given. Accordingly we hold that the entire proceedings which seeks to deny the refund without challenging the final assessment Orders are liable to be set aside. Regarding the observation of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the assessment has been undertaken without following the Circular No. 12/2014-Customs dated 17.11.2014 we observe that C.B.I.C. has directed vide the above said Circular that the transaction value is to be decided based on the load port test report or discharge port test report as per terms of contract where the proper officer shall compare the two reports as per the terms set out in the contract and finalize the provisionally assessed shipping bills under the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act 1962 and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules 2007 duly supported by Bank Realisation Certificates for the purposes of comparison with the final invoices. Thus in the present case the valuation of the exported Iron ore Fines has to be derived at based on the terms of contract with Foreign Buyer and as per the Contractual agreement. Accordingly the Load Port Test Report in the present case would be the decisive factor for the determination of the value of the Iron Ore fines exported. This stand is further substantiated by the fact that the remittance has also been received in proportion thereof only. The Customs officers cannot change this transaction value or the stipulation of the test report of Mitra S.K. Pvt. Ltd. being the determinant of the transaction value. Thus the report of Discharge Port report / CRCL Report has no relevance in the present case for deciding the levy of Export Duty. In view of the above findings we hold that the refunds eligible to the appellant as per the final assessment orders cannot be rejected without challenging the final assessment orders. As the final assessment orders have not been challenged in this case the rejection of refund sanctioned to the appellant in the impugned order is legally not sustainable and accordingly we set aside the same. Thus we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by he appellant with consequential relief if any as per law.
The core legal issues considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:
Issue 1: Legality of rejecting refund without challenging final assessment order Legal framework and precedents: The Customs Act, 1962 governs assessment and refund procedures. Section 14 defines transaction value for export goods. The principle that a final assessment order attains finality unless challenged is well established in judicial precedents. The Supreme Court in ITC Limited v. Commissioner (2019) held that no consequential effect can be given unless the assessment order is challenged. Similarly, the Tribunal in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner reiterated that a refund arising from a final assessment order cannot be denied without challenging the order itself. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the appellant's shipping bills were provisionally assessed based on provisional invoices and surveyor certificates, followed by final assessment orders confirming excess duty paid. The department did not challenge these final assessment orders. The refund was granted pursuant to these final orders. The Tribunal emphasized that the department cannot reject refunds arising from final assessment orders without challenging those orders. This principle was supported by authoritative decisions including the Supreme Court's ruling in ITC Limited and the Tribunal's decision in Reliance Industries. Application of law to facts: Since the department failed to challenge the final assessment orders, the rejection of refunds sanctioned on their basis was held to be legally impermissible. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund and allowed the appeal. Competing arguments: The department argued non-compliance with Circular No. 12/2014 and valuation irregularities as grounds for rejecting the refund. However, the Tribunal found these objections irrelevant in the absence of a challenge to the final assessment orders which had already confirmed the excess duty paid. Conclusion: Refunds arising from final assessment orders cannot be denied without challenging those orders. The department's appeal was unsustainable on this ground. Issue 2: Determination of transaction value and application of Circular No. 12/2014-Customs Legal framework and precedents: Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 defines transaction value as the price actually paid or payable for the goods. Circular No. 12/2014-Customs dated 17.11.2014 provides procedural guidance on finalizing provisional assessments based on load port and discharge port test reports, in accordance with contractual terms. The Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 also govern valuation procedures. Several Tribunal and High Court decisions (e.g., Bonai Industrial Company Pvt. Ltd., Ore Cast India, Terapanth Foods Ltd., Hira Steel Ltd., Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Essel Mining & Industries Ltd.) have affirmed that valuation must be based on contractual terms and the load port test report where stipulated. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant's contracts stipulated that the load port test report by Mitra S.K. Private Ltd. would determine the shipment weight and form the basis of the commercial invoice. The appellant raised final invoices based on this load port test report, and payments were received accordingly, supported by Bank Realization Certificates. The Circular mandates comparing load port and discharge port reports and finalizing provisional assessments consistent with contract terms. The Tribunal held that the Customs officers cannot alter the transaction value or substitute the stipulated load port test report with discharge port or CRCL reports for valuation. Key evidence and findings: The contract terms, final commercial invoices, test reports from Mitra S.K. Private Ltd., and Bank Realization Certificates substantiated the appellant's valuation method. The department did not challenge the final assessment order confirming this valuation. The Circular's procedural requirements were thus fulfilled as per the contract. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied Section 14 and the Circular to uphold the appellant's valuation based on the load port test report. The discharge port test report was held irrelevant for valuation in this case, consistent with the contractual stipulations and Circular guidelines. Competing arguments: The department contended that the assessment ignored the discharge port test report and did not follow Circular No. 12/2014, thus invalidating the refund. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the contractual terms and the final assessment order's confirmation of valuation. Conclusion: The transaction value must be determined as per the contract and load port test report. The department cannot override this basis without challenging the final assessment order. Issue 3: Effect of final assessment orders on subsequent refund claims and appeals Legal framework and precedents: Final assessment orders under the Customs Act are conclusive unless challenged. Refunds granted pursuant to such orders become legally enforceable. The Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions confirm that subsequent attempts to deny refunds without challenging assessment orders are impermissible. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the principle of finality of assessment orders. Since the department did not challenge the final assessment orders confirming excess duty and sanctioning refunds, it could not later deny refunds on different grounds. This principle ensures legal certainty and protection of taxpayer rights. Application of law to facts: The appellant's refund claim arose directly from the final assessment orders. The department's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) to deny the refund without challenging those orders was held to be legally untenable. Conclusion: The final assessment orders are binding and any denial of refunds arising therefrom must be preceded by challenge to those orders. Significant holdings and core principles: "Since the final assessment order which is undisturbed attained finality and refund has arisen out of such order, at a later stage before Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue cannot make an allegation contrary to the final assessment order." "Unless the assessment order is challenged, no consequential effect can be given." "The transaction value is to be decided based on the load port test report or discharge port test report, as per terms of contract... The Customs officers cannot change this transaction value or the stipulation of the test report of Mitra S.K. Pvt. Ltd., being the determinant of the transaction value." "Refunds eligible to the appellant as per the final assessment orders cannot be rejected without challenging the final assessment orders." The Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, reaffirming the binding nature of final assessment orders and the contractual basis for valuation under the Customs Act and Circular No. 12/2014.
|
