2013 (12) TMI 588 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds assessment timing for palm oil imports, emphasizing dip measurement accuracy.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals challenging the finalization of provisional assessments of ex-bond Bills of Entry for crude palm oil imports during ... Finalization of provisional assessments of ex-bond Bills of Entry filed - Import of crude palm oil - Timing of measurement of quantity - Assessee contends that liquid would take at least 48 hours to settle and, therefore, any measurement of its depth in the shore tank before this period would yield incorrect results - Held that:- Though the appellant has referred to certain opinion of FOSFA (Federation of Oil, Seeds and Fats Association International) in the memoranda of appeals, there is nothing in that opinion concerning the time taken by the liquid to settle. The case of the appellant is that dip measurement should have been done after at least 48 hours from the time of receipt of the liquid cargo in the shore tank. The FOSFA opinion does not throw any light on this aspect. On the other hand, we have found the appellate Commissioner’s view in this connection to be more acceptable. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed thus: In my opinion the time for stabilization depends on the type of bulk liquid cargo and also the length of the pipeline from the vessel to the shore tank through which the liquid is pumped and various other parameters. The appellate authority further noted, quite rightly so, that the appellant never raised any dispute at the time of shore tank dip reading by the Customs which was taken in the presence of the appellant’s representative. Further since the goods had already been cleared after import, it was not practically possible to take fresh dip measurement of the same stock of liquid in the same tank - Decided against assessee. Issues:- Disposal of appeals against finalization of provisional assessments of ex-bond Bills of Entry for crude palm oil imported during 2004-05.- Timing of measurement of quantity in shore tank for assessment purposes.- Interpretation of relevant circulars and public notices.- Applicability of FOSFA opinion on settling time of liquid cargo.- Dispute resolution regarding dip measurement process.Analysis:The judgment pertains to appeals filed by the assessee against the finalization of provisional assessments of ex-bond Bills of Entry for crude palm oil imported during 2004-05. Despite no representation from the appellant, the tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeals considering their long pendency. The main objection raised by the appellant was regarding the timing of measurement of quantity in the shore tank for assessment purposes. The appellant argued that the dip measurement should not have been done within 48 hours of receipt of the liquid cargo, as it would yield incorrect results due to settling time. They referenced different practices at Kakinanada Port, circulars, and public notices to support their claim. However, the learned Commissioner (AR) defended the impugned order, highlighting the absence of objections during the dip measurement process.Upon careful consideration of the grounds of appeal and submissions, the tribunal found no substance in the appellant's grievance at this stage. The tribunal emphasized that dip measurement of shore tank quantity is crucial for assessment, dismissing the relevance of decisions cited by the appellant. While the appellant referenced FOSFA opinion, it did not address the settling time of liquid cargo. The tribunal favored the appellate Commissioner's view, emphasizing the importance of stabilization time based on cargo type and other parameters. The tribunal noted that the appellant did not dispute the dip reading during the measurement process and highlighted the impracticality of taking fresh measurements post-import clearance. Consequently, the appeals were rejected as lacking merit, and the decision was ordered accordingly.Overall, the judgment underscores the significance of dip measurement for assessing liquid cargo in shore tanks, emphasizing the need for stability considerations and practical constraints post-clearance. The tribunal's decision rested on the lack of merit in the appellant's objections and the adequacy of the assessment process followed.