2004 (11) TMI 437 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of the weight of 'CONSTANT' in the LDT of the vessel imported.

Analysis:
The appeal in question revolved around the determination of whether the weight of 'CONSTANT' should be considered in the Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) of a vessel imported by M/s. Marinelines Ship Breakers (P) Ltd. The Appellants argued that the 'CONSTANT' in question, which was essentially sea water used as ballast for stability during the ship's voyage, should not be included in the LDT calculation. They contended that the transaction value should be based on the Customs Valuation Rules and that the 'CONSTANT' should not be considered as part of the vessel's weight for assessment purposes. The Appellants also cited a Ministry's Circular and a survey report to support their stance.

In response, the Senior Departmental Representative argued that the 'CONSTANT' of a vessel typically includes essential spare parts and equipment, which form part of the vessel's normal equipment and should be classified along with the vessel under specific headings in the Customs Tariff Act. The Departmental Representative pointed out that movable gears like spare anchor, tail shaft, propeller, and machine tools are considered part of the vessel's equipment and should be included in the vessel's weight calculation.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Appellants had not provided evidence to show that the weight of the 'CONSTANT' was already included in the declared LDT of the vessel. The Tribunal agreed with the Departmental Representative's assertion that movable gears forming the 'CONSTANT' should be classified along with the vessel for assessment purposes. Since the 'CONSTANT' had not been factored into the assessment, the Tribunal ruled that it should be included in the vessel's weight calculation. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the transaction value was correctly determined based on the declared LDT and upheld the Revenue's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Appellants.