9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, Pilotage Charges and Port Dues would be Landing charges or otherwise could be added to freight. The attempt of Revenue to add certain actual amounts of charges found to be Landing charges, as per interpretation by the Commissioner, in this case, cannot be upheld especially when 1% landing charges stand are already included, in the value, as found by the Commissioner and as per the Apex Court s decision in the case of Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd.[ 1999 (12) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT] . (i) The assessments were provisional and on finalisation of provisional assessments no penalties would be called for. (ii) The penalties are not called for also as the additions to value as arrived at and consequent duty demands are not being upheld. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to be recovered under the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with the interest and penalty as per Section 114A. Since there was an allegation of suppression invoked about the freight incurred on the daughter vessels and other charges/payments made to the Port Trust resulting in short payment of duty larger period was to be invoked. (e) Ld. Commissioner of Customs vide his impugned order after arriving at a conclusion : (i) On reading of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 2(2)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 makes it clear that in addition to transportation value there was certain other costs and services which are required to be included for arriving at assessable value and normally for arriv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be included in the assessable value when the landing charges at 1% had already been calculated and included. Therefore Berth Charges, Pilotage Charges and Port Dues were required to be added to the valuation and he dropped the additions of Wharfage. Determined the duty and imposed penalties. Hence this appeal. 3. After considering the submissions it is found - (a) (i) Transaction value under the Customs Act, 1962 has to be reckoned with and would include cost, insurance and freight and would include landing charges. There is no dispute on that aspect. The dispute is whether the payments made in respect of Berth Charges, Pilotage Charges and Port Dues would be Landing charges or otherwise could be added to freight. (ii) The Apex Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding these charges, on actual basis has been dealt with by Apex Court in the following words in the very same Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd., decision (supra). In the the present case, the Customs authorities assessed the landing charges that the appellant incurred at 1.4 per cent of the CIF value of the goods. There Is no objection by the appellants to this. It is not the case that such percentage exceeds the cost in this behalf that day have actually incurred and that they should get a refund. What they do contend is that the 1.4 per cent landing charges represent all that they have had to expend to bring the said goods to land and that, therefore, no addition of stevedoring or unloading charges can be made. In our view, the submission made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
