TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 756
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed since during the coastal run, the vessel would not be a 'Foreign going Vessel' under section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whatever is consumed during the coastal run would have to be treated as 'import' under section 2(21) of the said Act.. Duty is leviable on the same in terms of Circular No. 58/97-CUS dated 06.11.1997 it makes a level-playing field for ships operating in the coastal run. 2. The said B/E was assessed provisionally and after getting the consumption report at the end of the coastal run at Mundra, the assessment was finalized vide letter dated 28/29.08.2023 from ACC, Paradip by determining the value of fuel oil and diesel oil consumed during the coastal run on the basis of the price at which such goods are sold to ships by Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. (IOCL, for short) at Indian Ports to the vessels in India plus 20% of FOB as freight plus @1.125% as Insurance and @1% as Landing Charge. The Appellant's request to determine the value on the basis of contemporaneous import value was not accepted. Appeal filed against the said Assessment Order was rejected vide Order-in-Original No. 12/CUS/CCP/2016 dated 29.03.2016. The instant appeal is filed against the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the elements freight, insurance and handling charges in the assessable value, the Appellant submits that the issue is no longer res-integra. A number of appeal cases of the same nature and of the same appellant have already been decided by CESTAT, Kolkata. In Appellant's own case in Appeal No. 75210/2019, it has been held that the practice of assessment by including notional freight, insurance and handling charges is not permissible and the appeals made therein were allowed with consequential relief. 6. The said issued is also settled in favour of the Appellant in the following judgments:- M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd. v CCEx, Cus &STax, BBSR-I [Order No. MO/75030/2019 & FO/75076/2019] CC(Airport & Admin), Kolkata v M/s. Jet Airways [Order No. 77008- 77010/2019] 7. These decisions are also in line with Facility Notice No. 02/2023 dated 10.08.2023 issued by the concerned CC (Prev), Bhubaneswar. Under these circumstances, the Appellant prayed that their appeal be allowed with direction to the assessing officer to re-assess the impugned B/E on the basis of NIDB data in line with Orders-in-Appeal of CC(A), Bhubaneswar No. 112-159/CUS/CCP/2021 dated 16.12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he lower authorities have taken the view that Rule 9 comes into play and Rule 9(2) mandates addition of (a) the cost of transport of the imported goods to the place of importation, (b) loading, unloading and handling charges associated with delivery of the imported goods at the place of importation, and (c) the cost of insurance. 9. The claim of the appellant is that the above Rule will not come into play in the circumstances of the present case inasmuch as IOCL price declared by them has already included the elements of freight, insurance and landing charges. To this effect, the appellant has also submitted a certificate issued by IOCL. 10. We find that the issue is a recurring one and for the earlier period, the same first appellate authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals), had decided in favour of the appellant. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for the earlier period dated 20-2-2013, stands accepted by the Customs Department. 11. We have carefully perused the cited order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and note that the Commissioner (Appeals) had taken the view that the determination of value on the basis of Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove principle, the appellant has declared the price on the basis of bonded bunker price as notified in IOC price list for adoption at various locations in India, namely Kolkata, Haldia and Paradeep. The appellant has stated that the IOC prices are adopted for assessment of bunkers at other ports as a matter of practice it has submitted a few evidences to this effect. It is obvious that the price mentioned in the said IOCL price list is the price at which bunkers are supplied at these locations in India, in fact, it also includes local charges levied in India such as entry tax, delivery charge, State entry tax, sales tax, etc. It also includes barge charges at different Indian Ports, wherever applicable. Therefore, to presume that the prices specified in the said price list do not include freight and insurance charges for its first importation into India and therefore, needs to be loaded for such notional charges as directed under Rule 9(2) is not correct. The Valuation Rule 7, does not envisage that the prices adopted locally will have to be considered as international price, and freight, insurance, landing charges, etc., have to be included thereto to arrive at assessable value. ....