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>Customs Duty on Bulk Liquid Cargo: Alternative Methods Recognized Beyond Ullage Survey Reports.</h1> <h3>GODREJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> GODREJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 5 (Bom.) Issues Involved:1. Validity of public notices dated 30th March 1992 and 17th September 1997 issued by the Collector of Customs, Mumbai.2. Validity of Circular dated 27th December 2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC).Summary:Issue 1: Validity of Public NoticesThe petitioners challenged the public notices dated 30th March 1992 and 17th September 1997, which mandated that customs duty on imported bulk liquid cargo be assessed based on the ullage survey report rather than the actual quantity received. The petitioners argued that the ullage survey report only provides an estimated quantity and is not an accurate measure. Historically, the B.P.T. Weigh-bridge report was used for assessing the actual quantity received, and the petitioners sought remission of duty based on this report.Issue 2: Validity of CBEC CircularThe CBEC Circular No. 96/02 dated 27th December 2002 reiterated the requirement to assess customs duty based on the ullage survey report for bulk liquid cargo not discharged through regular pipelines. The petitioners contended that this circular misinterpreted judicial decisions, including those by the CEGAT and the Apex Court, which held that the quantity determined at the shore tank by dip measurement should be the basis for customs duty assessment when cargo is discharged through regular pipelines.Judgment:The court examined the validity of the public notices and the CBEC circular in light of previous judicial decisions. It was noted that the ullage survey report is a recognized method but not necessarily the most accurate. The court held that if the actual quantity received can be determined by any other recognized method, such method should be adopted for customs duty assessment. The public notices and circular should be interpreted to allow for the use of more accurate methods where available, rather than mandating the use of ullage reports exclusively.The court concluded that the customs authorities should not be directed to assess bulk liquid cargo solely based on ullage reports if more accurate methods are available. The petitions were allowed in part, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 