9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 836/2004 is against Order of Commisioner (Appeals) No. 332/2004 (1898-JMN)Cus/Comr(A) /AHD, dt. 4-8-04 and CO No. 627/2004 relates to this appeal. 3. Heard both sides. 4.1 The relevant facts relating to Appeal No. £/513/04, in brief, are as follows: (i) The appellant company imported rock phosphate through Bhavnagar port which is a tidal port. The consignments were unloaded from mother vessel to barges at the anchorage point. (ii) The department proposed to include the transportation charges from anchorage point to jetty of the port in the assessable value. (iii) But the original authority vide his order dated 28-3-03 held that: "…….all the actual expenses incurred from anchorage point to jetty and till the dumping groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vessel to the port of importation i.e. jetty is includable in the assessable value. 4.2 The relevant facts relating to Appeal No. 836/04, in brief, are as follows: (i) The appellant company claimed refunds in pursuance of favourable order of the Original authority dated 28-3-03 which was rejected as pre-mature by the order dt. 28-4-04 of the original authority on the ground that the Department is on appeal against the order dt. 28-3-03. (ii) The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the party's appeal holding that the proceedings started by the refund claim has become unfructous as the appeal filed by the Department against the order dt. 28-3-03 has been allowed by him. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay/JNPT/Dharmtar as the ports of discharge. As such, the cost of transport has already been included in the price paid to the seller under the CIF contract or an ascertainable freight determined and paid by the buyer from the foreign port to the Indian port. Hence, a further addition to the transport charges under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 is in our opinion clearly impermissible. 60. In the impugned order dated 7-3-01, the Tribunal has based its decision on its conclusion that the place of import was the Dharamtar jetty and not the BFL (vide paragraphs 9 to 18 of the Tribunal's order). Without commenting on the correctness or otherwise of this view, we are of the opinion that whether we treat the place of impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
