2017 (3) TMI 1067 - AT - Customs

Finalization of provisional assessments of ex-bond Bills of Entry filed - Import of crude palm oil - Timing of measurement of quantity - Assessee objects against recording the quantity of the cargo immediately after pumping the oil into the tanks as the same does not yield accurate results - Held that - identical issue has come up before this Tribunal at Bangalore in the case i.e. Acalmar Oils & Fats Ltd. Vs. CC, Visakhapatnam 2013 (12) TMI 588 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the Tribunal held that the time for stabilization depends on the type of bulk liquid cargo and also the length of the pipeline from the vessel to the shore tank thro ugh which the liquid is pumped and various other parameters. Also, it was pointed out that since the goods had already been cleared after import, it was not practically possible to take fresh dip measurement of the same stock of liquid in the same tank - impugned order upheld - decided against appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Discrepancy in dip measurement of imported liquid cargo leading to assessment orders based on dip measurement recordings.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in importing bulk liquid cargo of vegetable oils for sale in the domestic market. The issue revolved around the measurement of imported soya bean oil through Kakinada Port and the manner of measurement. The Customs authorities took dip measurement of the entire cargo immediately upon receipt in the shore tank, directing the filing of Ex-Bond Bills of Entry based on this measurement. The appellant objected to this practice, claiming it did not yield accurate results as the measurement was taken before the oil had settled sufficiently in the tank. Assessment orders were passed based on dip measurement recordings, leading the appellant to approach the Tribunal for relief.

The Tribunal referred to a similar case from Bangalore concerning the timing of measurement of quantity in liquid cargo imports. The appellant argued that dip measurement should not be done within 48 hours of receipt in the shore tank as the liquid needed time to settle, citing differences in practices at Kakinada Port and other ports. The Commissioner (AR) defended the impugned order, highlighting the absence of objections during the dip measurement by the appellant's representative.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's grievance. It noted that dip measurement of shore tank quantity was standard for assessment, dismissing the relevance of decisions cited by the appellant. The FOSFA opinion referenced by the appellant did not address the settling time of liquid cargo. The Tribunal found the appellate Commissioner's view more acceptable, emphasizing the importance of factors like the type of cargo and pipeline length in stabilization time. It was observed that the appellant did not dispute the dip measurement during the process, and taking fresh measurements after clearance was impractical. Consequently, the appeals were rejected as lacking merit, and the impugned orders were sustained.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the appellants, upholding the impugned orders based on dip measurement recordings.