TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal excludes demurrage charges from custom duty, finds no interest demand under Customs Act</h1> <h3>M/s IOCL Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore</h3> M/s IOCL Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore - 2017 (347) E.L.T. 611 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:- Inclusion of demurrage charges in the assessable value of imported goods for custom duty purposes.- Applicability of interest demand under Section 18 of the Customs Act.Analysis:1. Inclusion of Demurrage Charges: The main issue in this case revolved around whether demurrage charges paid by the appellant on imported goods should be included in the assessable value for custom duty purposes. The appellant argued that demurrage charges are incurred post-importation and should not form part of the transaction value. The appellant relied on the decision in the case of CC Mangalore Vs Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, where it was held that demurrage charges are post-importation events and cannot be part of the transaction value. Additionally, the appellant cited the decision of the larger Bench in the case of CC Jamnagar Vs Grasim Industries Ltd, which supported the position that demurrage charges should not be included in the assessable value for customs duty. The Tribunal, considering the settled legal precedents, ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the impugned order was not sustainable in law, and set aside the demand for inclusion of demurrage charges in the assessable value.2. Applicability of Interest Demand: Another issue raised was the demand for interest under Section 18 of the Customs Act. The appellant contended that interest was not demandable as the relevant provision was inserted after the period of imports in question (2002-04). The Tribunal acknowledged this argument and held that the provision for interest would not apply to the imports during the specified period. The Tribunal, therefore, rejected the demand for interest based on the timing of the insertion of the relevant provision and the period of imports in question.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, holding that demurrage charges should not be included in the assessable value of imported goods for custom duty purposes and that interest demand under Section 18 of the Customs Act was not applicable to the imports during the relevant period. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.
TaxTMI 