2007 (9) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der chapter sub-heading 1511.90.90 and assessed at 100% basic customs duty. 2. It appears that the respondent imported palmolein oil and the consignment was stored in 14 tanks on the board of the ship. Representative samples were drawn tank-wise both on board as well as from the shore tanks as per the provisions of Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said reasons were communicated to the respondent-importer by letter dated 12-3-2003 who was asked to show cause as to why the cargo received vide ship tank IP and IS should not be treated as palmolein of non-edible grade. 3. According to the respondent, as per the Board's circulars dated 31-7-97 and 13-7-2001, the expression "vegetable oils of edible grade" would also cover vegeta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... awn from shore tanks were not truly representative samples of the cargo received in the ship tank Nos. IP and IS. 5. The Appellate Commissioner took note of the fact that even at the stage when the goods were received in the shore tanks, the cargo in the ship tanks was "co-mingled. It was observed that the importer had cleared the goods from the point of shore tanks by filing the relevant bill of entry under Section 46 of the Act for clearance from custodianship tanks. It was held that, the bill of entry dated 22-3-2005 was in respect of clearance of the goods from the shore tank. It was also held that, the impugned bill of entry was not filed in respect of clearance of the goods from the ship tank, and was filed in respect of the goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inction was made in a later decision of the Supreme Court in Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai, reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.). Referring to paragraph 40 of the judgment, he submitted that Supreme Court had distinguished the decision in Garden Silk Mills Ltd. (supra) on the ground that the question involved therein was whether the landing charges could be included in the value of the imported goods for the purpose of valuation. It was observed that Garden Silk Mills Ltd. (supra) was not a case relating to transportation charges. Admittedly, the present case is neither related to landing charges nor to transportation charges. He, there fore, submitted that we should go by the basic principles, and the definition of " .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X