Rungta Mines Ltd vs VISAKHAPATNAM-CUS

1 Appeal Nos. C/30352-
30354/2020


CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I

Customs Appeal No. 30352 of 2020
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-019 to 021-19-20 dated
31.07.2019 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. 30353 of 2020
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-019 to 021-19-20 dated
31.07.2019 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. 30354 of 2020
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-019 to 021-19-20 dated
31.07.2019 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/30352-
30354/2020


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

FINAL ORDER No. A/30495-30497/2026
Date of Hearing: 13.08.2026
Date of Decision: 03.09.2026

[ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD]

These three appeals have been filed by M/s Rungta Mines Ltd.,
(hereinafter referred to as appellant) against the impugned Order-in-Appeal
dated 31.07.2019. Since the parties, impugned order and the issue involved
in all the appeals are common, they are taken up together and disposed of
by this common order.
2. The fact in brief is that the appellant exported consignments of Iron
Ore Fines through Gangavaram Port under three Shipping Bills. The
assessments were initially made provisional pending receipt of the test
reports and final documents. Subsequently, the jurisdiction Assistant
Commissioner finalized the provisional assessments on the basis of the
chemical examination reports by treating the Fe content determined on Dry
Metric Ton basis (“DMT”) as the relevant Fe content percentage. As the Fe
content so determined was above 58%, the goods were subjected to the
corresponding higher rate of export duty.
3. The appellant challenged the final assessments before the
Commissioner (Appeals), contending that the percentage of Fe content, for
determining the applicable rate of export duty, was required to be calculated
on Wet Metric Ton basis (“WMT”), namely, with reference to the total mass
of the iron ore including moisture. According to the appellant, although the
contractual price was determined on DMT basis, the same could not govern

3 Appeal Nos. C/30352-
30354/2020


the determination of Fe percentage for the purpose of classification and rate
of duty.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals), did not examine the above contention on
merits. He observed that, before finalization of the assessment, the appellant
had accepted the proposed finalization and had also waived personal
hearing. He further treated the plea raised in appeal as involving additional
evidence and, relying upon Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982,
rejected all the three appeals. Hence, the present appeals.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though no additional
evidence was produced before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant
had merely raised a legal ground regarding the correct method of
determining the Fe content on the basis of the test reports already available
on record. It is contended that Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982,
which regulates production of additional evidence, had no application to an
additional ground of law. Reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal, 1997
(89) E.L.T. 19 (SC) and upon CBEC Circular No. 4/2012-Cus. dated
17.02.2012. It is submitted that the percentage of Fe content has to be
determined with reference to the total mass of the iron ore as presented for
export, including the moisture contained therein. Reliance is also placed
upon:
i) Commissioner of Customs (port), Kolkata Vs Sesa Goa Ltd., 2014 (310)
ELT 915 (Tri.-Kol.);
ii) General Nice Mineral Resources (I) Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Customs,
Vijayawada, 2017 (352) ELT 94 (Tri.-Hyd.);

4 Appeal Nos. C/30352-
30354/2020


iii) V.M. Salgaokar and Brothers Pvt Ltd., Vs Asst. Commissioner of Customs
(Export), 2023 (11) Centax 215 (Bom);
6. Learned Authorized Representative reiterates the impugned order and
submits that the appellant had expressly accepted the proposed finalization
of the assessments and waive personal hearing. Therefore, it was not open
to the appellant to subsequently dispute the very basis on which the
assessments were finalized.
7. Heard both sides and perused the records.
8. The principle question for consideration is whether the Commissioner
(Appeals), was justified in rejecting the appeals without examining the legal
ground raised by the appellant regarding determination of Fe content on
WMT basis.
9. Rule 5 of the Customs(Appeals) Rules, 1982 deals with production of
additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the present case,
the appellant did not seek to introduce any new test report or other factual
evidence. Its contention was that the Fe percentage recorded in the test
reports already forming part of the assessment record should be converted
and considered on WMT basis for determining the appropriate tariff entry
and rate of export duty. Such a contention constitutes a legal ground based
on the existing record and cannot be equated with production of additional
evidence.
10. Section 128A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 specifically enables the
Commissioner (Appeals), to permit an appellant to raise a ground not
specified in the memorandum of appeal where the omission was not wilful or
unreasonable. It is also settled that a pure question of law, which can be

5 Appeal Nos. C/30352-
30354/2020


determined on the basis of facts already available on record, may be raised
at the appellate stage. Reference may be made to Jute Corporation of India
Ltd., Vs CIT, 1991 (54) ELT 176 (SC) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.,
Vs CIT, 1998 (229) ITR 3 (SC).
11. The mere fact that the appellant had initially accepted the proposed
manner of finalization or waived personal hearing would not preclude it from
challenging the final assessment in the statutory appeal. There can be no
estoppel against the correct application of a statutory provision. The
assessments were appealable orders, and the appellant had availed the
prescribed appellate remedy. The decision in ITC Ltd., Vs Commissioner of
Central Excise, Kolkata-IV, 2019 (368) ELT 216 (SC) also recognises that an
assessment must be challenged through the statutory appellate mechanism
before consequential relief can be claimed. The appellant has followed that
course in the present case.
12. On merits, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Gangadhar Narsingdas
Aggarwal, supra, held that, after determining the actual quantity of iron, its
percentage has to be worked out with reference to the total weight of the
iron ore available at the relevant time, inclusive of moisture. If moisture is
excluded while calculating the denominator, the Fe percentage would not
represent the condition of the goods as presented for export.
13. The above principle was clarified and directed to be followed by the
Board in Circular No. 4/2012-Cus. dated 17.02.2012. The Board clarified
that, for the purpose of charging export duty, the assessment of iron ore for
determination of Fe content shall be made on WMT basis and not on DMT
basis. The subsequent decisions in V.M. Salgaokar and Brothers Pvt Ltd.,
supra, have also recognised the requirement of considering the Fe content

6 Appeal Nos. C/30352-
30354/2020


with reference to the goods in the condition in which they were presented for
export.
14. The basis adopted for determining the transaction value under the
commercial contract and the basis for determining the Fe percentage for
classification and rate of duty operate in different fields. Merely because the
contractual price is expressed by Dry Metric Ton (DMT), it does not
necessarily follow that the Fe percentage for tariff purposes must also be
taken on DMT basis. The applicable rate of duty has to be determined in
accordance with the tariff notification, the governing statutory provisions and
the binding judicial precedents. Nevertheless, the precise WMT Fe
percentage, the applicable tariff entry and the consequential duty liability in
each shipping bills require verification from the respective test reports,
moisture content and other assessment records. Since neither the
Adjudicating Authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals), has examined these
aspects in the proper legal prospective, it would be appropriate to remand
the matters for fresh consideration.
15. Accordingly, the common impugned order dated 31.07.2019 and the
corresponding final assessment orders are set aside. The matters are
remanded to the jurisdiction Adjudicating Authority with the following
directions:
i) The Fe percentage shall be determined on WMT basis, taking into account
the moisture content and the condition of the Iron Ore Fines as presented for
export;
ii) The relevant test reports already available on record shall be considered,
and the appellant shall be permitted to produce the connected contractual
and assessments documents;

7 Appeal Nos. C/30352-
30354/2020


iii) The classification, applicable rate of export duty and transaction value
shall be determined separately in accordance with law.
16. All contentions concerning the consequential calculation of value and
duty are left open. The Adjudicating Authority shall complete the proceedings
expeditiously, without being influence by the appellant’s earlier letters
accepting the proposed finalization.
17. The above appeals are, accordingly, allowed by way of remand, with
consequential relief, if any, subject to the outcome of the fresh proceedings.
( Pronounced in the open court on 03.09.2026)

(A.K. JYOTISHI)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)




(ANGAD PRASAD)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shirisha