2015 (5) TMI 959 - AT - Customs

Valuation - additions - Difference in moisture content of the consignments of M.T. Copper concentrate imported by the assessee at the time of loading the consignment at the port of shipment and at the time of importation - Held that - Revenue has tried to make a distinction on facts which we are not inclined to appreciate. It does not make any difference whether the present case is one of the High Sea Sales which was not the fact before the Apex Court. Hon ble Apext Court has held that once freight is included in the assessable value up to the port of unloading then no further expenses on account of lightrage and stevedoring can be added to the cost of transportation. We find that there is no difference on facts and the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Ispat Industries Limited vs. CC Mumbai (2006 (9) TMI 181 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) will be squarely applicable. Once a consignment has been imported under one invoice the same will represent the transaction value of the imported goods as no contrary evidence of extra repatriation to seller is available on record - there could be a difference in the moisture content of the copper concentrate of the port of loading and port of discharge depending upon the climatic conditions and the method of sampling. However to our mind such a variation will not have any bearing on the valuation for an agreed price which has been paid. The ratio of the case law laid in the case of CC (Prev.) Jamnagar vs. Gujarat Ambuja Limited Jamnagar (2012 (6) TMI 177 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) is squarely applicable to the issue - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of lightrage and stevedoring charges in the assessable value.
2. Short payment by the importer due to moisture content of copper concentrate.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Inclusion of Lightrage and Stevedoring Charges
The appeal involved a dispute over whether lightrage and stevedoring charges should be included in the assessable value. The Revenue contended that these charges should be included, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument, stating that once freight is included up to the port of unloading, additional expenses like lightrage and stevedoring cannot be added to the transportation cost. The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a specific case was directly applicable to the present situation.

Issue 2: Short Payment Due to Moisture Content
Regarding the second issue of short payment by the importer due to the moisture content of copper concentrate, the Tribunal examined whether any change in moisture content at different stages would affect the invoice price on which duty is paid. The Respondent argued that regardless of moisture content variations, the invoice value remains constant unless evidence of extra payment to the seller is provided. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent, highlighting that the transaction value represented by the invoice should stand unless proven otherwise. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged potential differences in moisture content due to various factors but concluded that such variations do not impact the agreed price paid. Citing a relevant case law, the Tribunal affirmed that the issue of moisture content did not warrant a finding of short payment by the importer.

In conclusion, based on the analysis of both issues and established legal principles, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decisions made in the lower courts.