9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 955 - AT - CustomsValuation - assessment of Customs Duty - quantity of liquid import cargo - quantified on the basis of weight mentioned in the invoice or on the actual shore tank received weight? - Applicability of Board Circular No.6/2006-Cus dated 12 January, 2006 - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer under dispute since not only the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MANGALORE 2015 (9) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT decided that the quantity of liquid cargo should be taken on actual shore tank received basis and not on the basis of invoice and the same was accepted by the Board by withdrawing the earlier circular. Therefore, the issue is no more under dispute now. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved: Determination of quantity of liquid import cargo for assessment of custom duty based on invoice weight vs. actual shore tank received weight.
Analysis: 1. Issue of Quantity Determination: The primary issue in this case revolved around the determination of the quantity of liquid import cargo for the assessment of custom duty. The appellant argued that as per Board Circular No.6/2006-Cus dated 12 January, 2006, the quantity for assessment should be based on the quantity mentioned in the invoice. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Manglore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd Vs. C.C., Manglore 2015 held that the actual shore tank received quantity should be considered for assessment of liquid cargo, not the invoice quantity. Subsequently, the Board withdrew the circular and clarified in circular 34/2016-Cus dated 26 July, 2016 that the shore tank receipt quantity should be the basis for levy of custom duty. 2. Legal Submissions: The appellant's counsel contended that the issue was settled in favor of the assessee due to the Supreme Court judgment and the subsequent Board circular. The Authorized Representative for the revenue also conceded that the issue was settled as per the Board Circular. 3. Judgment Analysis: The Tribunal, comprising HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) and HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), acknowledged that the dispute was no longer under contention. They noted that the Supreme Court decision in the Manglore Refinery case had established that the actual shore tank received quantity should be used for assessment, leading to the Board withdrawing the earlier circular. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. 4. Conclusion: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD clarified the issue of quantity determination for liquid import cargo, emphasizing the importance of considering the actual shore tank received weight over the quantity mentioned in the invoice for the assessment of custom duty. The decision aligned with the Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent Board circular, providing a clear resolution to the dispute in favor of the appellant.
|
