2001 (3) TMI 179 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the place of importation.
2. Inclusion of lighterage charges in the assessable value of imported goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the Place of Importation:
The appellants argued that the place of importation was the Bombay Floating Light (BFL) where the goods were unloaded from the mother vessel into barges. However, the court examined the legal provisions and relevant notifications to determine the correct place of importation. The court referred to the Notification No. 1/94 (N.T.), dated 3-10-1994, issued by the Collector of Customs, which designated Dharamtar Port as the place of unloading, not BFL. The court emphasized that Section 33 of the Customs Act, 1962, stipulates that imported goods can only be unloaded at a place approved under Section 8(a) of the Act. Since BFL was designated as a place of anchorage and not unloading, the court concluded that the place of importation was Dharamtar Port and not BFL. The court also referenced Section 35 of the Act, which requires documentary coverage during the transportation of goods unloaded from a mother vessel into a daughter vessel up to the place of landing, reinforcing that the goods were not considered imported until they reached Dharamtar Port.

2. Inclusion of Lighterage Charges in the Assessable Value:
The court examined whether the lighterage charges incurred in transporting the iron ore from the mother ship to Dharamtar Port should be included in the assessable value of the imported goods. The Assistant Commissioner initially opined that these charges were includible under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, which includes "loading, unloading and handling charges associated with the delivery of the imported goods at the place of importation." The court analyzed Rule 9(2) and concluded that the cost of transportation to the place of importation, including lighterage charges, should be included in the assessable value. The court rejected the appellants' argument that the goods ceased to be "imported goods" at BFL, reiterating that the place of importation was Dharamtar Port. The court also dismissed the argument that including additional transportation costs would amount to double inclusion, stating that the cost incurred by the importer for transporting the goods from BFL to Dharamtar should be added to the freight paid for the carriage from the port of exportation to BFL.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the impugned orders, concluding that:
1. The place of importation was Dharamtar Port, not BFL.
2. The cost of transportation to the place of importation, including barge charges, should be included in the assessable value of the imported goods.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed.