2012 (7) TMI 356 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Quantity to be considered for the valuation of imported MS/HSD and whether CVD is liable to be paid on such value or not - the assessee contested that the quantity which has been unloaded into the shore tank is only the quantity on which duty liability needs to be discharged and not the bill of lading - Held that - As the appellant is paying the price indicated in the invoice even if appellant would have received lesser quantity of the goods in the shore tanks, the invoice value charged and paid by the appellant would be the correct value unless there is a clear evidence that they have paid less amount or they have paid the value/price for the quantity received in shore tanks - in against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported MS/HSD for duty liability and applicability of CVD.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against an OIA related to the provisional assessment of motor spirit (MS) and high-speed diesel (HSD) by an importer through the port of Kandla. The appellant had filed Bills of Entry which were provisionally assessed due to the absence of final invoices and out-of-turn reports from the port authority. Subsequently, after a CBEC circular, final assessment was initiated, and the appellant was notified. The adjudicating authority identified two key issues: valuation of bulk cargo and the quantum of CVD on imported goods. The appellant agreed to pay deficient duties but requested finalization of the provisional assessment. The adjudicating authority ruled against the appellant on both issues. The first appellate authority upheld this decision after a personal hearing, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Tribunal.

Despite the appellant's absence during the Tribunal hearing, a written submission was considered. The Tribunal heard the ld. SDR and reviewed the assessee's submissions. The primary issue revolved around determining the quantity for valuing imported MS/HSD and whether CVD was payable on that value. The appellant argued that duty liability should be based only on the quantity unloaded into the shore tank, not the bill of lading quantity, and that CVD was not applicable to that amount.

The Tribunal noted that the transaction between the appellant and the overseas supplier was invoice-based, with the appellant not disputing paying the invoiced price even if they received a lesser quantity. The Tribunal held that unless there was clear evidence of underpayment or payment for the quantity received in the shore tanks, the invoice value remained correct. Referring to a previous Tribunal judgment upheld by the Apex Court, the Tribunal favored the Revenue.

Regarding the additional duty of customs, the Tribunal agreed with the first appellate authority's analysis, deeming it a correct interpretation of the law. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's appeal, rejected it, and upheld the impugned order as legally sound and free from defects.