2009 (10) TMI 721 - AT - Customs

PSU appeal reinstated over Customs Act valuation dispute. Stay sought on duty recovery.

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., COCHIN

The appeal of a PSU was restored after being dismissed due to non-clearance from the Committee on Disputes. The appellant sought a stay on the recovery of ... - Issues:1. Restoration of appeal due to non-clearance from Committee on Disputes.2. Stay of recovery of duty amount raised under Customs Act, 1962.3. Valuation of bulk liquid cargo suffering losses in transit on import into India.4. Assessment of assessable value based on actual payment for importing consignments of crude oil.Issue 1: Restoration of appealThe appellant, a PSU, filed a restoration application for its appeal which was dismissed earlier due to non-clearance from the Committee on Disputes. The Revenue verified the cause and found it to be correct, leading to the restoration of the appeal to its original number.Issue 2: Stay of recovery of duty amountThe appellant sought a stay of recovery of duty amount of Rs. 13,29,722 raised under the Customs Act, 1962. The issue revolved around the valuation of bulk liquid cargo facing losses in transit on import into India. Specifically, the question was whether the payment made by the importer for the Bill of Lading quantity and actual freight incurred should be adopted for arriving at the assessable value.Issue 3: Valuation of bulk liquid cargoThe first appellate authority ruled against the assessee, stating that the quantity received in shore-tank is immaterial, and the entire quantity of the bulk liquid should be considered for adjudication. The demurrage charge was also deemed part of the transaction value, which was contested by the appellant.Issue 4: Assessment of assessable valueThe Adjudicating Authority applied Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with Rule 9(1) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 to determine the assessable value. It held that the amount actually incurred by the importer for importing each consignment, including FOB value and freight, represents the transaction value for levying ad valorem duty. The appellant failed to succeed before the appellate authority, with both authorities basing their decisions on relevant circulars and court decisions. The appellant was directed to make the pre-deposit of the duty demanded within a specified timeline to protect the interest of Revenue.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of restoration of appeal, stay of recovery of duty amount, valuation of bulk liquid cargo, and assessment of assessable value, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions involved in the case.