CESTAT affirms shore tank quantity for customs duty on liquid edible oil imports

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD upheld the use of shore tank quantity for customs duty assessment of bulk liquid edible oil imports, dismissing appeals challenging this method. Importers were granted relief in finalizing provisional assessments based on shore tank quantity, emphasizing adherence to CBEC Circular No.96/2002. Dip readings for stable liquid in shore tanks were required post-stabilization, with minor quantity differences deemed insignificant. Appeals contesting assessment of edible oil directly discharged into refinery tanks based on ship ullage quantity were dismissed. An appeal dismissed for delayed filing due to statutory limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dispute on the measurement of quantity of imported edible oil.
2. Finalization of provisional assessment based on shore tank quantity.
3. Dip reading timing for stable liquid in the shore tank.
4. Quantity assessment for edible oil directly discharged into the refinery tank.
5. Appeal dismissal due to delayed filing.

Issue 1: Dispute on the measurement of quantity of imported edible oil

In the case of bulk liquid edible oil imports, the dispute centered around the method of measurement for customs duty assessment. The Circular No.96/2002-Cus issued by the CBEC mandated that the quantity as measured in the shore tank should be considered for assessment. The Tribunal upheld this position, citing previous judgments such as Acalmar Oils & Fats Ltd. and CC, Visakhapatnam Vs. Adani Wilmer Ltd. It was established that the shore tank receipt quantity should be the basis for levy of customs duty for bulk liquid cargo imports, rather than relying on the ship ullage quantity. Consequently, the impugned orders in favor of adopting shore tank quantity for assessment were sustained.

Issue 2: Finalization of provisional assessment based on shore tank quantity

Regarding the finalization of provisional assessment for imported edible oil warehoused and cleared for home consumption, the Tribunal examined the appeal filed by the importer. The contention was that assessment should be based on shore tank receipt quantity as per CBEC Circular No.96/2002. The Tribunal agreed with the importer, emphasizing that the shore tank quantity should have been the basis for determining the assessable value and customs duty liability. As a result, the importer's appeal was allowed with consequential benefits.

Issue 3: Dip reading timing for stable liquid in the shore tank

In cases where Soyabean oil was imported in bulk and warehoused, the appellants raised concerns about the timing of dip reading for stable liquid in the shore tank. They argued that readings should be taken after 48 hours to allow for stabilization and to account for turbulence and foam. The Tribunal supported the importer's position, noting that the dip reading should indeed be taken after the liquid stabilizes. The minor percentage differences in quantity due to foam and turbulence were considered insignificant, leading to the allowance of the appeals filed by the importers.

Issue 4: Quantity assessment for edible oil directly discharged into the refinery tank

For appeals related to the quantity of edible oil discharged directly into the refinery tank, the Tribunal examined the methodology for assessment. The impugned orders followed the procedure outlined in CBEC's circular, which allowed for assessment based on ship's ullage survey report in specific scenarios. As the importer chose to have the cargo pumped directly into their tanks for home consumption, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals challenging the use of ship ullage quantity for assessment. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed.

Issue 5: Appeal dismissal due to delayed filing

One appeal was filed against the dismissal by the lower appellate authority due to delayed filing. The Tribunal highlighted the statutory provisions under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which set a limitation period for filing appeals. As there was no provision for further relaxation of the filing period, the appeal was dismissed for being beyond the statutory limitation period.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD addressed various issues related to the measurement and assessment of imported edible oil, emphasizing the importance of following prescribed guidelines and circulars for customs duty determination. The judgments provided clarity on the methodology for quantity measurement, assessment criteria based on shore tank quantity, and adherence to statutory limitations for appeal filings.

---