Orissa High Court
Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Global Associates on 6 August, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
OTAPL No.42 of 2024
Commissioner of Customs .... Appellant
(Preventive), Bhubaneswar
Mr. Avinash Kedia,
Junior Standing Counsel
-versus-
M/s. Global Associates .... Respondent
Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar,
Senior Advocate
assisted by
M/s. Avra Mazumdar,
Saswat Kumar Acharya,
Abhisek Agarwal and
Abhijeet Agarwal,
Advocates
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 06.08.2025
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Assailing order dated 11.03.2024 in Customs Appeal
No.75107 of 2020 (M/s. Global Associates Vs. Commissioner of
Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar) with Customs Appeal
No.75219 of 2020 (Shri Kunal Agarwala Vs. Commissioner of
Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar) passed by the Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Eastern Zonal
Bench), Kolkata (for short, "the CESTAT") directed against
Order-in-Original No.CC(P)/BBSR/CUS/NO-09/COMMR/2020,
dated 10.01.2020 of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),
Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar, the appeal has been filed raising
the following question(s) of law:
"i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Ld. Tribunal is correct in law and facts in
setting aside the Order-in-Original dated
10.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of
Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate,
Bhubaneswar, when there is no such
mechanism/formula prescribed in Customs
Act/Laws regarding determination of net Fe
content of Iron Ore Fines exported?
ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
the Ld. Tribunal is correct in holding that the net
Fe content of Iron Ore Fines for the purpose of
levy of Customs duty shall be determined on WMT
basis applying the conversion formula, when the
emergence of formula for such conversion has no
statutory basis?
iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Ld. Tribunal is correct in law to hold that
the Fe content WMT was less than 58% when the
partner of firm has admitted that there is incidence
of duty liability as the cargo was split into two
parts i.e. less than 58% and above 58% though the
average FE content of the combined Cargo is more
than 58%?"
3. The learned CESTAT, upon taking into consideration of
factual merit of the matter, has held as follows:
"12. We find that if we take the contention of the
department as correct that the appellant has
artificially splitted one consignment into three
Shipping Bills, in that case, the calculation to
arrive at Fe content is as follows:
S/B No. & Date WMT Moisture Fe on Fe on
DMT WMT
489268/22.03.2017 17117 6.9 57.67 53.69
4897267/22.03.2017 34000 6.29 66.33 59.35
5055344/28.03.2017 1143 6.29 63.33 59.35
Treating Export as 52260 6.48 61.47 57.48
Single Consignment
13. On going through the fact that as the Fe content is
to be calculated on WMT and as per the test
reports of the goods in question which have not
been disputed by either of the sides, the Fe content
on WMT treating the whole consignment as one
consignment works out to 57.48% which is less
than 58%, therefore, we hold that the appellant is
not liable to pay any duty on the export of the said
consignment treating as single consignment."
4. Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the respondent submitted that the questions of law
as posed by the appellant on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case are no more res integra by virtue of judgment dated
31.07.2025 of this Court passed in OTAPL Nos.42 & 31 of 2025
respectively in the case of Commissioner of Customs
(Preventive), Bhubaneswar Vs. M/s. Chamong Tee Exports Pvt.
Ltd., wherein it has been held that "Fe" content in Iron Ore Fines
(IOF) is to be determined on the basis of "Wet Metric Ton"
(WMT) but not "Dry Metric Ton" (DMT). He has placed reliance
on the following paragraphs of the said judgment:
"12. From the above quoted observations of the
coordinate bench, it is exposit that the Fe content
in IOF is to be determined on the basis of WMT
and not DMT and in view of a decision having
taken in this regard and in absence of any
materials forthcoming before us to take a different
view, the said point having settled cannot be said
to be a debatable one nor it invites any different
opinion to be arrived at. The comity of the judicial
discipline demands the uniformity in a
proposition of law and the judgment of the
coordinate Bench of a Court binds the other
coordinate Bench. The only course opens to the
later coordinate Bench, in the event of dissent to
refer the matter to the Chief Justice to constitute a
larger Bench.
13. As indicated above, we do not find any material
forthcoming to take a different view and, therefore,
the judicial discipline demands the adherence of
the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench at
an earlier point of time. We thus do not find that
the contention of the appellant that Fe content in
IOF is to require to be determined on the basis of
DMT and not WMT is sustainable."
4.1. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the ratio of
judgment referred to supra is attracted to the instant case in all
fours.
5. Mr. Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel
appearing for the appellant conceded and submitted that the
aforesaid questions of law as sought to be formulated in the
appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Customs have already
been answered by this Court in the aforesaid cited judgment.
6. Faced with such conceded position of law, this Court
finds no substantial questions of law in the instant appeal filed
under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, the appeal
is dismissed. Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall
also be dismissed accordingly.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANORANJAN
SAMAL
Designation: PERSONAL
ASSISTANT
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court,
Cuttack
Date: 08-Aug-2025 18:12:34
