9911796707
TMI BlogAssessment of bulk liquid cargo – ship ullage survey report Vs shore tank receipt – Supreme Court’s order dated 20.2.2002 in Civil Appeal No.6764/1999 in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs M/s. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.(NOCIL)X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Ltd.(NOCIL). I am directed to invite your attention to the above mentioned subject. Attention is also invited to Board’s Circular No.46 dated 17.5.2000 directing the Custom Houses to finalise the provisional assessments relating to bulk liquid cargo imports on the basis of ullage survey reports. However, pursuant to the Supreme Court order dated 20.2.2002 referred to above, the matter has been re-examined by the Board. 2. To briefly recapitulate the facts, for quite some time now, a dispute has been going on between the oil companies and Customs regarding the quantity that needs to be taken for levy of customs duty on bulk liquid cargo. The dispute essentially relates to the method of determining the quantity. The contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, which are liable to duty". The Tribunal has thus held that the customs duty should be demanded on the quantity that is pumped into the shore tanks. 4. The CEGAT order dated 7.7.2000 in the case of HPCL has been followed subsequently by the Tribunal in other cases as well. In the case of Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam Vs HPCL, the CEGAT in its order No.483/2000-C dated 15.9.2000 has ordered finalization of provisional assessments on the basis of ‘dip measurement in the shore tanks’ as shown in the Cargo Intake Certificates attested by the Central Excise Authorities and not on the basis of quantity reported in the vessel’s ullage reports taken prior to actual unloading of goods. In yet another order (No.2-4/2002) dated 1.1.2002, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill of Lading quantity if the former is not made available by the Master/Agent. As the order of the Bombay High Court is in the nature of a consent order, this has not been a subject matter of dispute insofar as the liability of the Master/Agent under section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 is concerned. The Board is, therefore, of the view that the liability of the Master/Agent for penal action under section 116 should continue to be determined by comparing the ship’s ullage quantity at the port of discharge with the ship’s load port ullage quantity or the Bill of Lading quantity if the former is not made available by the Master/Agent. 6. Another issue of relevance pertains to assessment of bulk liquid cargo which is not discharged through r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd cleared directly on payment of duty under a white Bill of Entry, i.e., without the cargo being warehoused in a shore tank, assessment may continue to be done as per ship’s ullage survey report. As for liability of the Master/Agent for penal action for shortages u/s 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, the same may continue to be fixed in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Shaw Wallace. The liability should be evaluated by comparing ship’s ullage quantity at the port of discharge with the ship’s load port ullage quantity or Bill of Lading quantity if the former is not made available by the Master/Agent. 8. Wide publicity may be given to the above instructions by issue of a suitable Public Notice/Standi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
