2013 (12) TMI 289 - AT - Customs

Discharge of duty liability on the quantity of goods imported and received - Whether the assessee is required to discharge the duty liability on the imported bulk liquid cargo on the shore tank receipt quantity or on the ship ullage quantity - Held that - duty liability has to be paid on the transaction value which is a price payable for the goods irrespective of the quantity received by the assessee in the shore tanks. There are contradictory judgments available - udgment and orders in the case of MRPL (2006 (2) TMI 518 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) is has taken a view that duty liability has to be paid on the transaction value which is a price payable for the goods irrespective of the quantity received by the assessee in the shore tanks, while the judgment of Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. (2007 (11) TMI 210 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) holds otherway round - There seems to be a contradiction in the judgments given by this Bench as cited herein above on an identical issue. Since there is a contradiction, we direct the Registry to place the records along with the case-laws as referred in this order before the Hon ble President for consideration of constitution of a Larger Bench to sort out the contradiction - matter referred to larger bench.

Summary

Issues:
Discharge of duty liability on imported bulk liquid cargo based on shore tank receipt quantity or ship ullage quantity.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over whether the duty liability on imported bulk liquid cargo should be discharged based on the shore tank receipt quantity or the ship ullage quantity. The appellant imported edible oils through Kakinada port, and discrepancies were found in the measured quantities at different stages of the import process. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim for the differential duty, stating that the shore quantity cannot be considered for discharging duty liability. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision, leading to the appeal.

The appellant argued that duty liability should be discharged based on the shore tank quantity, citing a Tribunal judgment in a similar case. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that duty liability should be based on the entire quantity as indicated in the Bill of Lading, regardless of any losses. They referred to a different Tribunal judgment to support their position.

The Tribunal noted the conflicting decisions by the same Bench on this issue. The Bench had previously held that duty liability should be based on the transaction value, irrespective of the quantity received in shore tanks, while another judgment took a different stance. Due to this contradiction, the Tribunal decided to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for resolution.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the Registry to present the case records and relevant case laws to the Hon'ble President for the constitution of a Larger Bench to address the contradiction in the judgments. The matter was referred to the Larger Bench for further clarification and resolution.