Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessable value of bunker stores remaining on a vessel converted from foreign run to coastal run was to be determined by applying Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 by adding freight, insurance and landing charges, or by adopting the deductive value method under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
Analysis: The value declared by the appellant was based on the IOCL price list used for bunkering at Indian ports. The earlier appellate order on the same recurring issue had held that Rule 9 was not the appropriate basis and that valuation should be worked out under Rule 7. Under the deductive value method, the price of goods sold in India is taken with deductions for usual transport and insurance costs and other associated charges, rather than treating the local bunker price as an international FOB price and loading it again with freight, insurance and landing charges. The cited IOCL price list was accepted as already reflecting the relevant local charges.
Conclusion: Rule 9(2) was not applicable on the facts, and valuation had to be made under Rule 7. The addition of freight, insurance and landing charges was unsustainable, and the differential duty demand was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the valuation adopted by the lower authorities was rejected in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the price of bunker stores is already based on a domestic Indian price list reflecting local charges, customs valuation should follow the deductive method under Rule 7 and not a loading under Rule 9(2) for freight, insurance and similar additions.