2017 (7) TMI 267 - AT - Customs

Valuation - The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised by applying the value of the goods based upon the contemporaneous/locally purchased goods and also imposed penalty - Held that - It is undisputed that indigeneously procured diesel oil as well as furnace oil was tanked in the same bunkers wherein the furnace oil and diesel oil was recorded as opening balance when the vessel reached the Tuticorin port from Singapore. In the absence of any other evidence to indicate that the furnace oil and diesel oil which was shown as opening balance when the vessel reached Tuticorin port was kept separately, the findings recorded by the first appellate authority are correct and legal and does not require any interfearance - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Calculation of duty on consumption of furnace oil and diesel oil on the ship
- Application of First In First Out (FIFO) method for duty calculation
- Valuation of bunkers consumed as per Customs Act, 1962
- Assessment, interest, and penalty sustainability as per Order in Original
- Adjudication authority entitlement
- Interest calculation under Section 47(2) of Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:

Calculation of Duty on Consumption of Furnace Oil and Diesel Oil:
The appellant challenged the lower authorities' calculation of duty on the consumption of furnace oil and diesel oil, arguing that the FIFO method was incorrectly applied. They contended that the indigenous furnace oil and diesel oil purchased during the voyage should be considered as duty paid. However, the Tribunal found the appeal devoid of merits, upholding the lower authorities' decision.

Application of FIFO Method:
The Tribunal analyzed the method of calculation used by the department, emphasizing the rationality and legality of applying the FIFO method for liquid cargo like petroleum products. The appellant's objection to this method was dismissed, as the Tribunal deemed the consumption figure based on FIFO as rational, legal, and proper.

Valuation of Bunkers Consumed:
Regarding the valuation of bunkers consumed, the Tribunal upheld the department's decision to adopt the contemporaneous import value under Rule 9 of Valuation Rules read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that elements like freight, handling charges, and insurance should not be applicable, emphasizing that these goods were deemed to be used for consumption under the Customs Act.

Assessment, Interest, and Penalty Sustainability:
The first appellate authority's detailed findings supported the sustainability of the assessment, interest, and penalty imposed. The authority concluded that the Order in Original was in order, citing various legal provisions and justifications for the decisions made.

Adjudication Authority Entitlement:
The Tribunal affirmed the adjudication officer's entitlement to adjudicate the case without limit in provisional assessment cases, particularly dealing with valuation under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Interest Calculation under Section 47(2) of Customs Act, 1962:
Regarding interest calculation under Section 47(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for interest under different sections, stating that interest should accrue as per Section 47(2) for the deferment period after assessment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal and pronouncing the operative part of the order in court. The findings of the first appellate authority were deemed correct and legal, requiring no interference.