2009 (11) TMI 643 - HC - Customs

Valuation - Whether the demurrage, wharfage and stock loss charges paid are liable to be included in the assessable value in terms of Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - in the case Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2004 -TMI - 46898 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) , appeal allowed and set aside the order passed and direct respondent No. 2 not to include the demurrage, wharfage and stock loss charges into assessable value of the appellant, the writ appeal is disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 regarding inclusion of demurrage, wharfage, and stock loss charges in the assessable value.
2. Applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
3. Availability of alternative remedies and the discretion of the court in entertaining writ petitions.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, concerning the inclusion of demurrage, wharfage, and stock loss charges in the assessable value. The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal had ruled in favor of including these charges in the assessable value, leading to an appeal by the appellant.

2. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's decision contradicted the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The appellant argued that a circular issued by the Ministry of Finance also supported their position, emphasizing that the charges should not be included in the assessable value based on the Supreme Court's ruling.

3. On the issue of alternative remedies, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, citing the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act. However, the High Court, in its judgment, acknowledged the merit in the respondent's argument that writ petitions should not be entertained when alternative remedies exist. Despite this, the High Court exercised discretion in this case due to the conflicting opinions within the Tribunal, ultimately allowing the appeal and directing the respondent not to include the mentioned charges in the assessable value.

4. The High Court's decision to set aside the orders of both the Tribunal and the Single Judge was based on the unique circumstances of the case where the Tribunal members had differing opinions. By allowing the appeal, the High Court provided relief to the appellant and clarified that the charges of demurrage, wharfage, and stock loss should not be included in the assessable value. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ appeal and closing the related miscellaneous petition without any order as to costs.