1987 (10) TMI 200 - AT - Customs

Tribunal directs re-quantification of charges in Department's favor

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS Versus COROMONDAL FERTILIZERS LTD.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS Versus COROMONDAL FERTILIZERS LTD. - 1988 (33) E.L.T. 451 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay for supplementary appeals.2. Inclusion of additional documents by the Department.3. Inclusion of stevedoring charges in the assessable value of imported goods.4. Time-barred issue under Section 131(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.5. Elements constituting stevedoring charges.6. Deduction of dispatch money from costs.Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay for Supplementary Appeals:The nine applications for condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals were not opposed by the respondents. The Tribunal allowed the applications and condoned the delay.2. Inclusion of Additional Documents by the Department:The Tribunal permitted the Department's Miscellaneous Application to place certain additional documents on record after hearing both sides.3. Inclusion of Stevedoring Charges in the Assessable Value of Imported Goods:The primary issue was whether stevedoring charges incurred for landing goods on Indian shores should be included in the assessable value of the imported goods for customs duty assessment. The respondents, manufacturers of fertilizers, imported rock phosphate and sulphur in bulk and managed their own unloading operations at Visakhapatnam. The Assistant Collector initially included various costs as stevedoring charges, which were contested by the respondents. The Appellate Collector later set aside this inclusion, stating that 1.4% landing charges already covered the unloading charges. The Department appealed, arguing that landing charges and unloading charges were distinct and that unloading charges should be separately included.4. Time-Barred Issue under Section 131(5) of the Customs Act, 1962:The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the revision show cause notice was time-barred under Section 131(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, they accepted that the matter was one of erroneous refund, to which the limitation did not apply, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. They did not press the limitation point further but reserved the right to revive it before the Supreme Court.5. Elements Constituting Stevedoring Charges:The respondents argued that no stevedoring charges should be added as they did not pay such charges to anyone. They also contended that costs incurred after the vessel entered Indian territorial waters should not be included in the assessable value. However, they did not press this point, acknowledging that most High Courts and the Tribunal had taken a contrary view. The Tribunal held that costs incurred for unloading goods onto Indian soil must be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal agreed with the Department that unloading costs, including depreciation, maintenance, and administrative overheads, should be included, but only up to the level directly related to the unloading operations.6. Deduction of Dispatch Money from Costs:The respondents proposed that dispatch money earned from quicker unloading should be deducted from the assessable value. The Tribunal accepted this argument, stating that it was fair to deduct dispatch money earned from efficient unloading operations. Conversely, any penalties for delayed unloading should be added to the costs.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the Department's appeals, subject to the Assistant Collector re-quantifying the unloading charges in light of the Tribunal's observations. The impugned orders-in-appeal were set aside, and the orders-in-original were restored with the specified modifications.