"(1) \nCUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \nREGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD \nRegional Bench - Court No. – I \n \nCustoms Appeal No. 25247 of 2013 \n(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.98/2012-VCH dt.30.11.2012 passed by Commissioner of \nCustoms, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) \nFair Deal Supplies Ltd \nNo.4 BBD Bag, Stephen House, \nKolkata – 700 001 \n \n......Appellant \nVERSUS \nCommissioner of Central Tax \nVisakhapatnam - Customs \n4th Floor, Customs House, Port Area, \nVisakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035 \n \n \n \n……Respondent \nAppearance:- \nNone for the Appellant. \nShri V. Srikanth Rao, Authorized Representative for the Respondent. \n \nCoram: \nHON'BLE MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) \n \n \nHON'BLE MR. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) \n \n \nFINAL ORDER No. A/30042/2025 \n \nDate of Hearing: 28.01.2025 \n \n \n Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 \n[Order per: A.K. JYOTISHI] \n \n \nNobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, we note that \nthis Bench had, vide order dt.08.05.2024, made it clear that if they do not \nappear before the Bench, when the case is posted next, the matter would be \ndecided with or without their presence. Therefore, we proceed to decide this \nissue based on the material available on record. \n2. \nWe find that Fair Deal Supplies Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the \nappellant) are in appeal against OIA dt.98/2012-VCH dt.30.11.2012 \n(impugned order), wherein, OIO dt.27.06.2012 was upheld. The OIO \nfinalized the provisional assessment resorted to in respect of export of \n19615 WMTs of Iron Ore fines with declared Fe content of 56%. While, at \nthe time of export, the provisional value was taken as USD 140 PDMT, \nhowever, at the time of finalization, the Adjudicating Authority has \nredetermined the said value as USD 115 PDMT. \n\n(2) \n3. \nThe appellants are in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned \norder on various grounds including that no sufficient reason is available for \nthe department to fix the FOB value as USD 115 PDMT and according to \nthem, the value should be USD 108 PDMT. The appellant, inter alia, has also \nsubmitted that no SCN was issued nor any opportunity was given to them to \nexplain their case, as also the data based on which the department has \nredetermined the value, was also not made available to them. \n4. \nLearned AR has taken us through the case and explained the grounds \nas to why the department found that value should be USD 115 PDMT and \nnot USD 108 PDMT, as contended by the appellant. He has reiterated the \nobservations and findings of the Original Adjudicating Authority as upheld by \nthe Commissioner (Appeals) to support that Fe content is more i.e., 58%, as \ncompared to the declared Fe content of 56% and therefore, the valuation \nhas to be redetermined in terms of contemporaneous price available for Fe \ncontent of 58%. Accordingly, the department has rightly calculated the \nvalue @ USD 115 PDMT based on certain contemporaneous exports data as \ndetailed in Para 7 of OIO. \n5. \nHeard learned AR and perused the documents. \n6. \nIn short, the issue is whether, in the facts of the case, the department \nwas right in redetermining the value for the purpose of calculating export \nduty. The department has, while finalizing the two shipping bills, adopted \nthe value of one M/s Sainath Industries considering that it pertains to almost \nthe same contract period. Here, we find that while the department might \nhave some doubt in view of the variation in the declared Fe content for \nrejecting the declared transaction value, that doubt itself needs to be \nexplained as to the ground for enhancing the declared value to USD 115 \nPDMT. The declaration of value @ USD 140 PDMT was only on the \nprovisional basis, as it was obviously subject to the determination of actual \nFe content to be finally established, which has now been found to be slightly \nhigher than what was declared by the appellant at the time of export. \nHowever, we find that the grounds for adopting the contemporaneous price \nwas not explained properly or disclosed to the appellant, as also, whether \nthe said price under identical or similar to the transaction adopted by the \nappellant also needed to be explained before adopting the said value, ipso \nfacto, for the purpose of determining the value. Moreover, unless the \n\n(3) \ntransaction value is itself doubted and rejected, resort to Valuation Rules for \nredetermination of value is also not correct. It seems that only ground was \nvariation in Fe content and no other evidence was available to doubt the \ncorrectness of transaction value. The BRC and remittance also supports \ncontention of appellant that value should be UDS 108 PDMT. \n7. \nTherefore, we find that the department has not sufficiently explained \nits ground to reject the declared value as well as adoption of \ncontemporaneous price and the OIO is a non speaking order. Further, we \nalso find that appellants have not been accorded opportunities to explain \ntheir stand, which is clear denial of the principles of natural justice. \nTherefore, in view of the same, we remand the matter to the Original \nAdjudicating Authority without expressing any opinion on the merit of the \ncase and keeping all issues open. He shall give an opportunity and hear \nthem out and thereafter, pass an appropriate and speaking order. \n8. \nAppeal allowed by way of remand. \n (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) \n \n \n \n \n \n (A.K. JYOTISHI) \n MEMBER (TECHNICAL) \n \n \n \n \n \n (ANGAD PRASAD) \n MEMBER (JUDICIAL) \nVeda \n \n"