2007 (2) TMI 96 - AT - Customs

Refund - Appellant demand for refund of differential duty between the quantity as per ullage and that received at shore - Held that the demand of appellant is sustainable

Summary

Issues:
- Assessment of duty on bulk liquid cargo imported through pipelines
- Discrepancy in quantity between ullage survey and shore tank receipt
- Interpretation of relevant legal precedents and circulars

Analysis:

1. Assessment of duty on bulk liquid cargo imported through pipelines:
The appeal in this case was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for differential duty on imported palm oil. The dispute arose when the quantity discharged based on ullage survey differed from the quantity received at the shore tank. The appellants contended that duty should be paid based on the quantity received in the shore tank, not the ullage survey report. The issue at hand was whether duty should be levied on the quantity determined through the ullage survey or the quantity received in the storage tank.

2. Discrepancy in quantity between ullage survey and shore tank receipt:
The appellants argued that the impugned goods were discharged into shore tanks in the presence of various parties, resulting in a quantity discrepancy between the ullage survey report and the actual quantity received in the storage tank. Legal precedents such as NOCIL v. CC and Godrej Industries Ltd. v. UOI were cited to support the appellants' position that duty should be paid based on the quantity received in the shore tank for bulk liquid cargo discharged through pipelines.

3. Interpretation of relevant legal precedents and circulars:
The Tribunal analyzed the relevant legal principles and circulars, including a Supreme Court decision and a Board Circular dated 27-12-2002. It was established that duty on bulk liquid cargo should be assessed based on the quantity received in the shore tank, as clarified in the legal precedents and circulars cited. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authority's decision to finalize the assessment based on the ship's ullage was incorrect. Therefore, the appellants were deemed entitled to the refund claim for the difference between the shore quantity and the ullage survey quantity, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the assessment of duty on bulk liquid cargo imported through pipelines, addressed the discrepancy in quantity between the ullage survey and shore tank receipt, and interpreted relevant legal precedents and circulars to rule in favor of the appellants' entitlement to a refund claim based on the quantity received in the shore tank.