2003 (5) TMI 137 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Early hearing of appeal, restoration of stay application, liability to pay duty on imported crude oil, interpretation of records of ship stand vs. shore tank, applicability of Supreme Court judgment, waiver of deposit, quantification of bulk liquid cargo.

Early Hearing of Appeal and Restoration of Stay Application:
The miscellaneous application sought early hearing of the appeal and restoration of the stay application, which was dismissed earlier. The Tribunal restored the stay application upon accepting that the appellant did not receive the notice of hearing, allowing for the appeal to proceed.

Liability to Pay Duty on Imported Crude Oil:
The Commissioner confirmed the duty liability on the quantity of crude oil imported by the appellant based on records of the ship stand, rather than the lower quantity received from the shore tank. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief.

Interpretation of Records of Ship Stand vs. Shore Tank:
The issue revolved around the interpretation of records regarding the quantity of crude oil imported by the appellant. The Tribunal considered the discrepancy between the quantity recorded at the ship stand and that received from the shore tank, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.

Applicability of Supreme Court Judgment and Waiver of Deposit:
The Supreme Court's decision in a related case was cited, which influenced the Tribunal's decision to waive the deposit and list the appeal for hearing. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court decision and subsequent Customs Circular supported the appellant's position regarding the quantification of bulk liquid cargo.

Quantification of Bulk Liquid Cargo:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order based on the development of the law post the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the Customs Circular, which determined that the quantification of bulk liquid cargo should be based on receipt in the shore tank, leading to the appellant's success in the appeal.