Customs valuation excludes demurrage and related charges; writ jurisdiction may still be exercised despite an alternate remedy.

Demurrage, wharfage and stock loss charges were held not includible in assessable value under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, consistent with the binding Supreme Court precedent and the Ministry of Finance circular relied on in the discussion. On maintainability, the existence of an alternative statutory appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act did not bar writ relief where the tribunal order reflected a divided view, allowing judicial discretion to entertain the petition. The appellate court therefore set aside the writ court and tribunal orders and directed exclusion of the disputed charges from assessable value.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether demurrage, wharfage and stock loss charges were includible in the assessable value; (ii) whether the writ petition ought to have been declined on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): whether demurrage, wharfage and stock loss charges were includible in the assessable value.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the application of Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 to the additional charges paid to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The earlier Supreme Court ruling relied upon by the appellant had already dealt with the inclusion of such charges in assessable value, and the circular issued by the Ministry of Finance also proceeded on that basis.

Conclusion: The charges were not liable to be included in the assessable value.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition ought to have been declined on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The availability of an alternate appellate remedy under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 was accepted as a general rule against entertaining writ proceedings. At the same time, the matter involved a tribunal decision in which the members had differed, which justified judicial discretion in entertaining the writ petition despite the alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition could have been entertained notwithstanding the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court set aside both the writ court order and the tribunal decision, and granted relief to the appellant by directing exclusion of the disputed charges from assessable value.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive tax issue is already covered by binding precedent and the tribunal order is marked by a divided view, the writ court may, in its discretion, entertain the petition despite an available statutory appeal.

---