2013 (12) TMI 38 - AT - Customs

Demand of differential duty - Demand of respect of crude petroleum on the basis of bill of lading quantity of the liquid cargo - Held that - duty of customs was leviable on the liquid cargo quantity mentioned in the bill of lading - Following decision of assessee s own case in 2006 (2) TMI 518 - CESTAT BANGALORE - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.84/2006-Cus. dated 22.6.2006
- Demand of differential duty on crude petroleum based on bill of lading quantity
- Dismissal of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal
- Precedent set by Final Order No.273/2006 regarding duty levied on bill of lading quantity
- Failure to obtain stay of operation for Final Order No.273/2006
- Liability of the appellant to pay customs duty on imported goods based on bill of lading quantity

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to five appeals filed by M/s. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. (MRPL) against Order-in-Appeal No.84/2006-Cus. The original authority demanded a differential duty from the assessee concerning crude petroleum, calculated based on the bill of lading quantity of the liquid cargo. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals, leading to the filing of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. Earlier, the Tribunal had dismissed similar appeals in Final Order Nos. 299-396/2010, following the precedent set by Final Order No. 273/2006, where it was held that customs duty was chargeable on the liquid cargo quantity as per the bill of lading.

The judgment notes that the assessee had appealed Final Order No. 273/2006 but had not obtained a stay of operation. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to uphold the precedent established by Final Order No. 273/2006, affirming that the appellant is obligated to pay customs duty on the imported goods based on the bill of lading quantity. As a result, all five appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment reiterates the legal principle that duty of customs is to be levied on the quantity of imported goods as mentioned in the bill of lading. The failure to secure a stay of operation for a previous order led to the dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellant against the demand for differential duty on crude petroleum. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal was based on the established precedent and the liability of the appellant to pay customs duty as per the bill of lading quantity.