Rungta Mines Ltd vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-VISAKHAPATNAM-CUS

1 Appeal Nos. C/30126-
30128/2020


CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I

Customs Appeal No. 30126 of 2020
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-025 TO 027-19-20 dated
30.09.2019 passed by Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)
M/s Rungta Mines Ltd., .. APPELLANT
Rungta House,
Chaibasa,
Jharkhand – 833 201.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT
Visakhapatnam - Customs
th
4 Floor, Customs House,
Port Area, Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh – 530 035.
WITH
Customs Appeal No. 30127 of 2020
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-025 TO 027-19-20 dated
30.09.2019 passed by Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)
M/s Rungta Mines Ltd., .. APPELLANT
Rungta House,
Chaibasa,
Jharkhand – 833 201.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT
Visakhapatnam - Customs
th
4 Floor, Customs House,
Port Area, Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh – 530 035.
AND
Customs Appeal No. 30128 of 2020
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-025 TO 027-19-20 dated
30.09.2019 passed by Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)
M/s Rungta Mines Ltd., .. APPELLANT
Rungta House,
Chaibasa,
Jharkhand – 833 201.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT
Visakhapatnam - Customs
th
4 Floor, Customs House,
Port Area, Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh – 530 035.

APPEARANCE:
Shri S.C. Choudhury, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Kakarala Prasanth Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

2 Appeal Nos. C/30126-
30128/2020


HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No. A/30498-30500/2026
Date of Hearing: 13.08.2026
Date of Decision: 03.09.2026

[ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD]

These three appeals arise out of impugned Order-in-Appeal dated
30.09.2019 and involve a common question of law and facts. They are,
therefore, taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The dispute relates to the classification and assessment of Iron Ore
Fines exported by the appellant. The short issue for consideration is whether,
for determining the applicable tariff classification and rate of export duty, the
percentage of iron (Fe) content is required to be calculated on Wet Metric
Ton (“WMT”) basis or Dry Metric Ton (“DMT”) basis.
3. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the goods were
exported prior to 01.05.2002 and, therefore, the Fe content was required to
be determined on WMT basis. Reliance has been placed upon:
i) Union of India Vs Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 19
(SC);
ii) Circular No. 4/2012-Cus. dated 17.02.2012;
iii) V.M. Salgaokar and Brothers Pvt Ltd., Vs Asst. Commissioner of
Customs(Export), Writ Petition No. 216/2022, decided by the Bombay High
Court at Goa dated 23.09.2022;
iv) Bagadiya Brothers Pvt Ltd., Final Order Nos 76644-76645/2023 dated
15.09.2023;
v) Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Final Order No. 77496/2023 dated 30.10.2023;

3 Appeal Nos. C/30126-
30128/2020


vi) Rungta Mines Ltd., and Others, Final Order Nos. 77770-77786/2024
dated 05.11.2024.
4. The appellant further submits that the finding of the Commissioner
(Appeals), that the appellant had accepted the assessment without
objection, is legally unsustainable. Classification is a question of law and an
assessment contrary to the statutory tariff cannot be sustained merely on
the ground that the appellant did not raise an objection at the initial stage. It
is also submitted that no additional evidence was sought to be introduced
before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant had merely raised a legal
ground on the basis of the test reports and other material already available
for the Department.
5. Learned Authorized Representative reiterates the impugned order and
submits that the assessments were accepted by the appellant without
protest. It is contended that the appellant could not subsequently seek
alteration of the assessments by producing additional material at the
appellate stage.
6. We have heard and considered to the submissions and perused the
record.
7. The issue is no longer res-integra. In the case of Gangadhar
Narsingdas Aggarwal, supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the
principle that the Fe content of iron ore exported in moist condition has to be
determined with reference to the condition of the goods at the time of
export. The percentage disclosed on dry basis cannot be applied directly
when the goods were admittedly exported in moist condition. The said
position was subsequently clarified by the Board through Circular No.
4/2012-Cus. dated 17.02.2012. The Circular specifically provides that, for

4 Appeal Nos. C/30126-
30128/2020


charging export duty, the Fe content of iron ore shall be determined on WMT
basis by taking into account impurities, including moisture.
8. We further find that a supplementary note was inserted in chapter 26
of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 w.e.f 01.05.2022,
providing that the percentage of Fe content in products falling under Heading
2601 shall be calculated on DMT basis. The insertion of this specific provision
w.e.f. 01.05.2022 reinforce the conclusion that, for exports made prior to
that date, the settled WMT method was applicable.
9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Goa in V.M. Salgaokar and others
Pvt Ltd., supra, as well as different Benches of the Tribunal in the decisions
cited by the appellant, have consistently followed the same principle. In fact,
the Kolkata Bench has applied this principle in the appellant’s own group
cases by Final Order Nos. 77770-77786/2024 dated 05.11.2024. We find no
reason to take a different view.
10. We also find that the Commissioner (Appeals), was not justified in
rejecting the appellant’s contention by invoking Rule 5 of the Customs
(Appeals) Rules, 1982. The appellant did not seek to introduce an entirely
new factual case or evidence. It raised a legal issue regarding the correct
method of determining Fe content on the basis of the test reports already
forming part of the assessment record. Such a question concerning correct
classification and rate of duty can be raised at the appellate stage.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd., Vs
Commissioner of Income Tax, 1991 (51) ELT 176 (SC), recognized that an
Appellate Authority may entertain an additional legal ground necessary for
correctly determining the tax liability. Likewise, in the case of Eternit Everest
Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Bhopal, 2010 (254)

5 Appeal Nos. C/30126-
30128/2020


ELT 507 (Tri-Del) it was held that the question of law may be raised at any
stage.
12. There can be no estopped against the statute. Mere acceptance of the
proposed assessment by the appellant cannot validate an assessment made
contrary to the tariff provisions, binding judicial precedents and the Board’s
Circular. The Assessing Authority is independently required to determine the
correct classification and duty liability in accordance with law.
13. In view of the above, we hold that, in respect of Shipping Bills involved
in these appeals, which were filed prior to 01.05.2022, the Fe content of the
exported Iron Ore Fines is required to be determined on WMT basis. The
finding of the Commissioner (Appeals), to the contrary cannot be sustained.
14. Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal is set aside. The
Jurisdictional Assessing Authority shall re-determine the Fe content on WMT
basis, after taking into account the percentage of moisture recorded in the
relevant test reports and applying the settled formula. Consequential re-
classification, re-assessment and relief, including refund, if otherwise
admissible, shall follow in accordance with law.
15. All the three appeals are allowed by way of remand in the above
terms.
( Pronounced in the open court on 03.09.2026)

(A.K. JYOTISHI)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)




(ANGAD PRASAD)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shirisha