2024 (11) TMI 949 - AT - Customs

Assessment authority's vessel import duty calculation upheld, freight inclusion in value ruled legally incorrect per precedent

GU SHIPPING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS - CUSTOMS (P) JAMNAGAR

CESTAT Ahmedabad upheld the assessment authority's finalization of duty on imported vessel and ship stores. The tribunal correctly deducted duty for ship ... Finalisation of assessment of duty - Assessment of duty on the vessel and ship stores - Freight, either actual or @ 20% of fob value was required to be added to the value of vessel for discharging duty at the time of import - filing common bill of entry for payment of duty on the vessels as well as total quantum of ship stores ascertained by the custom officers at the time of entry. HELD THAT:- We find that the assessing authority while finalizing the bill of entry after the coastal run has correctly deducted the duty involved in ship stores consumed during the voyage from Pipavav to Mumbai and back, therefore, on this count we do not find any error on the part of assessing authority . Hence the finalisation of assessment is correct and in order. As regard the inclusion of freight, the issue is squarely covered by this Tribunal judgment in the case Sachin kshirsagar [2022 (6) TMI 928 - CESTAT MUMBAI] The Commissioner (Appeals) contention that the freight should be included is not legal and correct. On careful perusal of the order-in- original, we find that there is absolutely no infirmity in the order of the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the same needs to be upheld. Issues Involved:1. Final assessment of duty on the vessel and ship stores.2. Requirement of separate bill of entry for conversion.3. Inclusion of freight in the valuation of the vessel.4. Classification of the vessel under the correct tariff heading.Detailed Analysis:1. Final Assessment of Duty on the Vessel and Ship Stores:The appellant purchased a vessel, M.V. Advaita, and upon its arrival at Pipavav, a bill of entry was filed for duty payment on the vessel and ship stores. The duty was provisionally assessed, and upon completion of a coastal voyage, a final assessment order was issued, resulting in a refund due to excess duty paid on ship stores. The Tribunal found that the assessing authority correctly deducted the duty involved in ship stores consumed during the coastal voyage, affirming the correctness of the final assessment.2. Requirement of Separate Bill of Entry for Conversion:The department appealed against the final assessment order, arguing that a separate bill of entry was required for the conversion of the vessel from a foreign-going vessel to a coastal run. The Tribunal, however, did not find any revenue loss due to the filing of a common bill of entry and upheld the final assessment order, noting that the assessing authority's actions were in compliance with the law.3. Inclusion of Freight in the Valuation of the Vessel:The issue of whether freight should be included in the valuation of the vessel was contested. The Tribunal referenced a previous judgment, which established that freight is not includible when a vessel is imported into India for the first time. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the inclusion of freight in the assessable value was not warranted, and the enhancement of the vessel's value was set aside.4. Classification of the Vessel under the Correct Tariff Heading:The classification of the vessel was disputed, with the appellant claiming it should be classified under Tariff Item 8901 90 00, while the department argued for classification under Tariff Item 8905 90 90. The Tribunal noted inadequacies in the impugned order regarding the determination between Heading 8905 and Heading 8906. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision on the appropriate classification. The Tribunal emphasized that technical features of the vessel should be considered in determining its classification. The penalties imposed on individuals for alleged misdeclaration were set aside, as there was no evidence of intent to evade duty.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the order-in-original, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision regarding the inclusion of freight in the vessel's valuation. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the matter of classification was remanded for further consideration. The penalties on individuals were also set aside, allowing their appeals.