2018 (2) TMI 1070 - AT - Customs

Short levy of customs duty - finalisation of provisional assessment - Held that - The customs duty is to be charged only on the basis of the actual quantity of crude receipt in the shore tank - the original authority has already perused copies of the respective shore tank receipt certificates and has finalised the provisional assessments - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding finalization of provisional assessment for the period 2006-07 to 2011-12 based on Bill of Lading quantity.
2. Determination of import quantities on the basis of shore tank receipts.
3. Challenge by Revenue on the availability of certified shore tank receipt certificates.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. COC-CUSTM-000-APP-236-270-15-16 dated 19/10/2015, concerning the finalization of provisional assessment for the period 2006-07 to 2011-12. The dispute arose when the original authority confirmed the short levy of customs duty based on Bill of Lading quantity for import consignments. The Commissioner(Appeals) ordered the determination of import quantities based on shore tank receipts, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a relevant case.

2. The law dictates that customs duty should be charged based on the actual quantity of crude oil received in the shore tank. The Tribunal noted that the original authority had already perused copies of shore tank receipt certificates and finalized the provisional assessments accordingly. The Commissioner(Appeals) also made a decision in line with this principle. The appeal by the Revenue challenging the impugned order was dismissed, as the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the decision.

3. During the hearing, the Revenue challenged the availability of certified shore tank receipt certificates. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that the finalization of assessment should be based on actual quantities received in the shore tank, for which certified copies of shore tank receipt reports were necessary but not available in the record. However, the respondent's counsel contended that copies of the shore tank certificates were already available, and sample copies had been submitted to the Tribunal. After considering both arguments and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the law was clear on determining customs duty based on actual shore tank receipts, and since the necessary documents were available, the impugned order was upheld.