2004 (9) TMI 167 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the cost of transportation from the anchorage to the jetty should be included in the assessable value of imported goods.
2. Interpretation of the term "place of importation" under Section 14(1) and Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
3. Applicability of the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. and others.
4. Relevance of the Supreme Court decisions and Board Circulars in determining the includibility of barge charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Transportation Cost from Anchorage to Jetty in Assessable Value:
The core issue is whether the transportation cost incurred for moving goods from the anchorage to the jetty should be added to the assessable value of the imported goods. The appellants argued that these costs are post-importation expenses and should not be included. However, the Tribunal noted that these costs are in the nature of transport charges and are includible in the assessable value under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Tribunal emphasized that the cost of transport to the place of importation must be added to the value, distinguishing it from unloading and handling charges at the place of importation.

2. Interpretation of "Place of Importation":
The Tribunal examined the term "place of importation" as mentioned in Section 14(1) and Rule 9(2). Citing previous judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's decision in Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. UOI, it was determined that the place of importation refers to the landmass of India, not the anchorage point. The Tribunal concluded that the place of importation is the notified place of unloading, such as a wharf or jetty, and not the point where the ship anchors in the sea.

3. Tribunal's Decision in M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. Case:
The appellants relied on the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., which excluded barge charges from the assessable value. However, the Tribunal noted that this decision was not accepted by the Department and was under appeal to the Apex Court. The Tribunal found that the decision in M/s. Reliance was contrary to the ratio of earlier Supreme Court decisions and did not serve as a binding precedent.

4. Relevance of Supreme Court Decisions and Board Circulars:
The Tribunal referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Garden Silk Mills Ltd. and Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd., to support its interpretation of the place of importation and the includibility of barge charges. Additionally, the Tribunal considered Circular No. 29/2004-Cus., which clarified that barging/lighterage charges are includible in the assessable value as "extended cost of transportation" under Rule 9(2)(a). The Circular emphasized that the importation is complete when the goods reach the landmass of the country, and all expenses incurred in bringing the goods to the landmass are includible in the assessable value.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that barge charges, being part of the transport cost to the place of importation, are includible in the assessable value. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the notified places of unloading are the place of importation, and the cost of transport to such places must be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal's decision is consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation and the Board's Circular, ensuring uniformity in assessment throughout the country.