Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
-Bhubaneswar(Preventive) vs Transtek Coal & Minerals Pvt Ltd on 4 February, 2026
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.2
Customs Appeal No. 75053 of 2023
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 131/CUS/CCP/2022 dated 25.10.2022 passed by
Commissioner (Appeals), GST, CX & Customs, Bhubaneswar.
Commissioner of Customs (Port), Bhubaneswar,
(C. R. Building GST, Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar-751007, Odisha).
...Appellant
VERSUS
M/s Transtek Coal & Minerals Pvt. Ltd,
(B32 & 33, New Industrial Estate,
Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Odisha)
.. ...Respondent
APPERANCE :
Shri S. Debnath, Authorized Representative for the Appellant None, for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. R. MURALIDHAR MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. RAJEEV TANDON MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Final Order No...75218/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 04.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION : 04.02.2026 PER R. Muralhdhar :
No one is present on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice. In the interest of justice, noting that the appeal pertains to the year 2023, we have taken up the appeal itself for disposal with the help of the Learned AR.
2. The appellant had exported 27245 WMT Iron Ore, claiming the Fe content to be less than 58 %. On the ground that the Fe content is required to be chemically examined for arriving at the Fe content, the Revenue asked the appellant to execute the Bond for allowing the same to be cleared on provisional assessment basis, by paying the export 2 Customs Appeal No. 75053 of 2023 duty @ Rs.300 per MT. Thereafter, the test result of CRCL Kolkata showed the Fe content as 58.7 %. On being sent for re-testing the Delhi CRCL arrived at the Fe content @ 60.75%. Being aggrieved by such a huge difference in the Fe content percentage between the tests, the appellant sought the second re-testing. The CRCL Mumbai arrived at the Fe content @ 55.6%. The Adjudicating authority considered all the factual details and finalized the provisional assessment holding that the Fe content is less than 58% and hence no Export Duty is required to be paid. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). He has gone through the details and has dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before the Tribunal.
3. The Learned AR submits that the two Test Reports of CRCL Kolkata and Delhi clearly showed that the Fe content was more than 58%. Therefore, he submits that the Adjudicating authority is in error in ignoring these test reports to come to a conclusion that the Fe content is less than 58%. He prays that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
4. We have gone through the appeal papers and case records. The Adjudicating authority in his OIO has recorded as under:
4. Discussion and findings:
4.1 In the instant case the duty liability of iron ores fines, exported by the exporter is determined by the percentage of Fe content of the subject Iron Ore Fines. 3
Customs Appeal No. 75053 of 2023 Similarly, the price of the subject Iron ore Fines is governed by the clause 8.2 read with cl 5, 6 & 7 of contracts No-PC-RMIOF-2101-02, DT.19.01.2021 as agreed between exporter and buyer. As per the relevant Contract the final price (invoice) shall be raised by the seller based on the Certificate of Analysis at Load Port by SGS/Mitra SK Pvt. Ltd.
4.2 From records, the following six analysis reports are available specifying the 'Fe' content and free moisture of the iron ore fines of the shipping Bill:
Name of the Fe content Fee Remarks
Surveyor/issuer certified moisture
SGS Pvt. Ltd, 57.83% 8.48% Basis of
invoice
Mitra SK Pvt. Ltd, 57.39% 8.44% Basis for
invoice
CIQ(discharge 57.02% 8.12%
Port)
CRCL, Mumbai 55.6% 4.5%
CRCL, Kolkata 58.7% 2.1%
CRCL, New Delhi 60.75 6.43%
Thus, from the above out of the six reports, in two cases the 'Fe' content shown above 58%. In this regard it is to be noted that though both the reports of CRCL, Kolkata and CRCL, New Delhi confirms the 'Fe' content above 58%, there is wide variation of 2.05% and 4.33% in the reported 'Fe' and 'Moisture' content respectively.
Moreover, I find that the exporter's request for 2nd re-test has been duly considered by the competent authority at CRCL, Mumbai on its representation where it has raised concern on the report like the sample was sent to CRCL, Kolkata for testing where there were Covid related restrictions and lockdowns in place. Further, the CRCL, Kolkata was under process of shifting to a different address at that time for which it believed that there might have been a mix up of samples leading to a gross error in testing. Moreover, I also believe that at the time of sending the sample for retest to CRCL, New Delhi, the test report of CRCL, Kolkata was informed which, might have influenced and biased the report. I also find that the competent authority has allowed the request of the exporter for 2nd re-test despite in place of report from two CRCL, laboratories and such re-test was carried out as per the provision of the Board's Circular no 30/2017-cus dated 18.7.2017. Therefore, the 2nd re-test report issued by the CRCL, Mumbai is valid 4 Customs Appeal No. 75053 of 2023 one which has to be duly taken into consideration for the purpose of finalization of the shipping bill.
5.0 Determination of Transaction value:-
As discussed above scrutinizing of relevant documents like Commercial Invoice, Bill of Lading, Certificate of weight issued by the M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. & Mitra SK Pvt. Ltd., Quality and weight certificate, Certificate of Origin, the total quantity of cargo exported was 27245 WMT. The value as per commercial invoice after factoring into moisture quantity as well as bonus for extra Fe less deduction for excess silica and demurrage, is declared for USD 2304430.14 whereas the same as per the three e-BRCs as well as the bank certificates in foreign currency is USD 2304430.14 Therefore, the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 for the purpose of valuation is considered the invoice value ie. USD 2304430.14 or Rs.166149413.094/-taking into account of exchange Rate @ 72.1 per USD of the relevant date for the Shipping Bill.
The above principle of acceptance of invoice value as the transaction value for the purpose of valuation has already been upheld by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai, in the case of Commissioner of Customs(Export), Goa Vs VGM Export-213(291) E.L.T.572(Tribunal-Mumbai).
5. On appeal by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals), in his Order in Appeal, has held as under:
On the basis of final documents submitted and all other material available on records, the Shipping bill was finally assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Customs Paradeep vide Final Assessment order No. CUS/PDP/DC/EXPORT 105/22/ dated 20.04.2022 under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 classifying the goods under CTH 26011142 as per the CRCL Mumbai test analysis report, Load port and discharge port reports ignoring the CRCL, Kolkata & Delhi Reports on the following observations- 5
Customs Appeal No. 75053 of 2023
(a) Six analysis reports are available specifying the 'Fe' content and free moisture of the iron ore fines of the shipping bill and out of the six reports, in two cases the 'Fe' content shown above 58%.
(b) That at the time of sending the sample for retest to CRCL, New Delhi, the test report of CRCL, Kolkata was informed which might have influenced and biased the report.
(c) Clause 2(f) of the Board's Circular No. 30/2017-Cus dated 18.07.2017 provides the guiding principles for consideration of test and re-test analysis which is reproduced as "The competent authority will consider the results of the re-test without prejudice to the results of the first test. In case there is a variation in the results of the first test and the re-test, the competent authority will take the decision relying upon either of the tests specifying the ground in writing for the decision so taken." The 2nd retest report issued by the CRCL, Mumbai is valid one which has to be duly taken into consideration for the purpose of finalization of the shipping bill.
Both the load port discharge port analysis reports were issued by reputed internationally recognized testing agencies. Such report cannot be brushed aside which formed the basis for raising the final invoice and receiving the remittance by the exporter. This has been upheld by the Hon'ble CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in the matter of Taurion Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Vishakapatnam final order No. 69/2009 dated 30.01.2009 in appeal No. E/456/2008. This principle has also been held in favour of the exporter in the case of Alpine International Vs Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore reported at 2008 (224) E.LT/331 (Tri-Bang). Further, the destination port report is in conformity with the load port reports as well as CRCL, Mumbai report.
In view of the above discussion and observations made by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Customs vide 0-1-0 No. Division, Paradeep CUS/PDP/DC/EXPORT/105/2022, dated 20.4.2022, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said observation, and the same is based on proper appreciation of documentary evidences available on record and following due process of law, 6 Customs Appeal No. 75053 of 2023 the legal parameters/ principles of law settled by the Judicial Forums. The appeal filed by the Appellant/ Revenue, therefore is completely devoid of any merit and the same is thus set aside.
6. After going through the factual details, we find that indeed the 2 nd re-test was allowed to be taken up by the Revenue. The 2nd Test result shows Fe content of 55.6%, when tested by CRCL Mumbai. It is also an admitted fact that the discharge port Fe content was @ 57.2% and the transaction value towards export realization is based on such Fe content only. Therefore, we find that both the lower authorities have gone into considerable details to verify the factual position to arrive at their decision. We do not find any necessity to interfere with their considered findings. Therefore, we dismiss the Revenue's appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Sd/-
(R. Muralidhar) Member (Judicial) Sd/-
(Rajeev Tandon) Member (Technical) Tushar Kr.