2011 (4) TMI 690 - AT - Customs

Demand - Appellant imported one consignment of ACN and filed a bill of entry - in terms of the Board s circular No.6/2006 dated 12.01.06, in all cases where Customs Duty is leviable on ad valorem basis, the assessment of bulk liquid cargo should be based on invoice price, irrespective of the quantity ascertained through shore tank measurement or any other manner. - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in as much as the appellant had made full payment to the supplier of the goods, without claiming any compensation for the short supply of the goods, the invoice price has to be made the basis for ad valorem confirmation of duty. - decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment based on provisional basis using Out Turn Report, finalization of assessment based on invoice value, confirmation of demand of duty, applicability of Board's circular, Tribunal's decision in M/s. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. case, determination of value for assessment based on quantity received in shore tanks, rejection of appeal based on full payment to supplier without claiming compensation.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved a case where the appellant imported a consignment of ACN and filed a bill of entry. The assessment was initially done provisionally, considering the Out Turn Report and assessable value proportionate to the quantity as per shore tank receipt. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated to finalize the assessment based on the invoice value as per Board's circular No.6/2006. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs.39,153 against the appellant.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower authorities' order, citing the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. CC. Mangalore, where it was held that the assessment should be based on the bill of lading quantity when payment is made accordingly, without considering the quantity received in shore tanks. The Commissioner observed that since the appellant had made full payment to the supplier without claiming compensation for any short supply, the invoice price should be the basis for confirming the duty ad valorem.

The appellant's advocate acknowledged that the issue was against them based on the Tribunal's decision and the Board's Circular. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to invoice values for ad valorem confirmation of duty, especially when full payment has been made without disputing any quantity discrepancies.

Overall, the judgment emphasizes the significance of following established legal precedents and circulars in determining duty assessments, ensuring consistency and fairness in trade transactions.