TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....keting of various petroleum products. Appellants have an installation at Mangalore (MLIF) wherein they have appropriate registration as a private bonded warehouse to receive and store imported LPG as well as indigenous LPG in bulk frm MRPL / RIL. As and when the LPG consignments are being imported, appellant filed into-bond Bill of Entry for warehousing the LPG cargo in the bonded shore tanks at MLIF and later on withdrawals are made from the bonded warehouse by filing ex-bond Bill of Entry for home consumption on payment of duty. LPG cleared for distribution in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant further alleged that due to insistence from the Customs Department, appellant had no option but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been settled in favour of the assessee by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra. Further we find that both the issues involved in the appeal have been considered by this Tribunal in the case of BPCL Vs. CC, Cochin [2018-TIOL-1739- BANGALORE] and have been allowed in favour of the assessee. For reference, we may reproduce the relevant findings:- 6. After hearing both the sides, we find that the issues involved in the above appeals are: (i) The levy of duty of customs on the liquid cargo not received in the shore tanks; (ii) the inclusion of demurrage charges for the purpose of valuation under the Customs Act, 1962. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Advocate, on both the issues the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that a levy in the context of import duty can only be on imported goods, that is, on goods brought into India from a place outside of India. Till that is done, there is no charge to tax. This Court in Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1999 (8) SCC 744 = 1999 (113) E.L.T. 358 (S.C.), stated that this takes place, as follows :- "It was further submitted that in the case of Apar (P) Ltd. [(1999) 6 SCC 117 = JT (1999) 5 SC 161] this Court was concerned with Sections 14 and 15 but here we have to construe the word "imported" occurring in Section 12 and this can only mean that the moment goods have entered the territorial waters the import is complete. We do not agree with the submission. This Court in its opinion in Bill to Amend Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fered or destroyed, no import duty is leviable thereon until they are out of customs and come into the hands of the importer. It is clear therefore, that it is only at this stage that the quantity of the goods imported is to be looked at for the purposes of valuation. Fourthly, the basis of the judgment of the Tribunal is on a complete misreading of Section 14 of the Customs Act. First and foremost, the said Section is a section which affords the measure for the levy of customs duty which is to be found in Section 12 of the said Act. Even when the measure talks of value of imported goods, it does so at the time and place of importation, which again is lost sight of by the Tribunal. And last but not the least, "transaction value" which occur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities in accordance with law. All the aforesaid appeals are disposed of in accordance with this judgment." By following the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hold that the assessment is to be made on the basis of quantity of crude oil actually received in the shore tanks in the port of arrival in India. 6.1 On the second issue of inclusion of demurrage charges for the purposes of valuation of crude oil, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mangalore vs. MRPL(supra) has held as below: "5. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. It is not even necessary to go into the various nuances of the matter as we are of the opinion that these appeals are bound to fail on one simple ground. The demurr....