Customs demand and valuation loading fail where the notice targets a non-importer and additions lack legal basis.

A person who is only a shipping agent and not the importer cannot be fastened with a Section 28 customs demand where the bill of entry was finally assessed and had attained finality. The notice and demand were therefore unsustainable. The valuation of bunkers, provisions and stores could not be loaded with unloading charges, freight or insurance on a flat or presumptive basis where the unloading component was nil and no payable or ascertainable freight or insurance element was shown. The added amounts were held impermissible, and the consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a show-cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against a person who was not the importer, after the bill of entry had been finally assessed and had attained finality; and (ii) whether additions towards unloading charges, freight and insurance could be made to the declared value for bunkers, provisions and stores under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

Issue (i): whether a show-cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against a person who was not the importer, after the bill of entry had been finally assessed and had attained finality.

Analysis: The definition of importer under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 was applied, and it was found that the appellant was only the shipping agent and not the importer. The earlier final assessment of the bill of entry had not been challenged and had therefore attained finality. On that basis, a notice seeking recovery from a person who was neither the importer nor the person liable as importer was not legally sustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The notice and the demand founded on it could not be sustained against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether additions towards unloading charges, freight and insurance could be made to the declared value for bunkers, provisions and stores under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

Analysis: The valuation additions were held to be unsustainable. The claimed unloading component was nil, and the flat addition of 1% could not be applied. Likewise, the additions towards freight and insurance were based on an incorrect assumption that the declared price was FOB-based, when the value had already suffered duty on the amount actually paid and no further freight or insurance element was shown to be payable or ascertainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The additions towards unloading charges, freight and insurance were held to be impermissible.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who is not the importer cannot be fastened with demand under Section 28 merely for filing papers, and valuation loading cannot be made on a flat or presumptive basis where the actual components are nil or are not legally payable or ascertainable.

---