Light displacement tonnage must follow the tariff formula; permanent ballast cannot be separately added for assessment.

An appeal against an assessment-related communication was treated as maintainable where the communication merely reflected the Collector's underlying determination and did not constitute an independent order. For vessel assessment under Chapter 89, light displacement tonnage had to be fixed strictly by the tariff method, using the builder's registered LDT in the stability book or builder's certificate, and where figures varied the highest indicated figure applied. Permanent ballast was not to be added separately, and external explanatory material could not override the tariff wording.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal against the assessment-related communication was maintainable before the Tribunal; (ii) Whether permanent ballast could be added to the vessel's light displacement tonnage for assessment purposes.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal against the assessment-related communication was maintainable before the Tribunal

Analysis: The communication issued by the Superintendent merely conveyed the basis already determined by the Collector for finalising assessment, including encashment of the bank guarantee. The substance of the dispute was therefore the Collector's determination, not an independent order of the Superintendent, and the proper appellate forum was the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and the appeal was held maintainable before the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether permanent ballast could be added to the vessel's light displacement tonnage for assessment purposes

Analysis: Note 2 of Chapter 89 fixed light displacement tonnage by reference to the builder's registered LDT in the stability book or builder's certificate, and where there was a variation, the highest indicated figure was to be taken. The Collector's resort to external material such as a glossary of terms from the Ministry of Shipping and Transport was held to be unnecessary in the face of the tariff wording. On the documents produced, the builder's certificate yielded the higher LDT figure, which had to govern the assessment.

Conclusion: Permanent ballast was not to be separately added to the LDT for assessment, and the assessment basis adopted below was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessment basis was set aside and the appellant obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tariff provision prescribes a specific method for determining light displacement tonnage, assessment must follow that statutory formula and cannot be enlarged by recourse to external explanatory material inconsistent with the tariff text.

---