TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1782
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mer in bulk at Kandla Port as well as Nhava Sheva Port on CIF (i.e. Cost, Insurance, Freight) basis. Regular agreements are made between the suppliers (i.e. shippers) and the charter hirers for transportation of the goods on 'Voyage Chartered Vessels' basis (and not on 'Time Chartered Vessels' basis). 3. A Notification No. 93/2007-Cus (NT) has been issued by the Central Government thereby notifying the new "Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007" to be brought into force from 10.10.2007. 4. The Government of India through the CBEC issued Circular No. 38/2007-Cus., dated 09.10.2007 inter alia clarifying that "Explanation" added to Rule 10(2) of Valuation Rules was to take care of cases of imports of Time C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....volved Voyage Chartered Vessels, custom duty was not payable on demurrage for such vessels. 6. The Additional DG, DRI, Kolkata issued show cause notice proposing to recover custom duties aggregating to Rs. 56,91,109/- on demurrage for imports made at Kandla Port and Rs. 44,77,397/- as custom duties on demurrage for imports made at Nhava Sheva Port, invoking larger period of limitation. The appellant filed reply before the custom authorities at Kandla as well as Nhava Sheva. The CBEC issued a Notification No. 7/2017-Cus (NT)/CAA/DRI appointing Additional Director General (Adjudication), DRI, New Delhi as the Adjudicating Authority for the above show cause notice. 7. The appellant appeared before the ADG (Adjudication) and submitted through....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....place at the Port, and therefore such demurrage charges were incurred after the goods were transported to the 'Place of importation'; (v) that the CBEC has clarified vide Circular dated 09.10.2007 that amendment to Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules with effect from 10.10.2007 was to take care of cases of imports by time charter vessels, and in cases where ship demurrage charges were paid by the importer for detention of the ship in the harbour before touching the land mass at the docks or at the place of consumption; (vi) that it was thus clear that only time charter vessels were covered under Rule 10(2)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules and not voyage charter vessels, which was the mode of transportation in the appellant's case; (v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or otherwise of demurrage charges was a pure question of interpretation and hence larger period of limitation cannot be invoked against the appellant in such case, unless there was any evidence for establishing that the appellant knew that demurrage charges were includible in the value of imported goods but still the appellant deliberately avoided declaration of such charges to the customs authorities. 8. The adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order confirming demand of differential customs duty aggregating to Rs. 1,01,68,506/- for all the imports at Kandla and Nhava Sheva, and also imposed penalty of matching amount under Section 114A of the Customs Act, upholding invocation of larger period of limitation. The entire order is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing only interpretational and there have been no suppression of facts from Revenue, extended period of limitation is not invokable. Accordingly, the show cause notice is bad for invoking the extended period of limitation. 13. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 14. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the issue herein is no longer res integra and have been impliedly decided in favour of the appellant by Hon'ble Orissa High Court in Writ Petition filed by Tata Steel Limited (supra). The Hon'ble High Court was please to hold Explanation to sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 is bad and further declared it ultra vires the provision of Section 14 of the Customs A....