9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of Tug, however Ld. Adjudicating authority added entire premium of ₹ 8,51,175/-, actual insurance premium born by the appellant can only be added in the FOB value to arrive at assessable value - From the documents submitted by the appellant there is no dispute that actual premium paid by the appellant is ₹ 2,63,962/- and not ₹ 8,51,175/-. As regard the penalties imposed on the appellant company, as well as Director and employee of the appellant company, we find that from the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any malafide intention of the appellant to evade Custom duty of ₹ 12 lacs where they had discharged huge amount of customs duty amounting to ₹ 3.67 crores - It is only inadvertent mistake occurred on the part of the appellant in not including cost of transportation, insurance and other expenses for the voyage of the Tug from China to Singapore - Appeal allowed - C/87135, 87136, 87137/13 - A/89992-89994/16/CB - Dated:- 2-9-2016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) and Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member(Technical) Shri. S.N. Kantawala, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. D.S. Maan, Asstt. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re before us. 2. Shri. S.N. Kantawala, Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that as regard the dispute of valuation, the appellant have admitted that there is a mistake in declaring the value for the reason that as per the advice of the CHA they submitted the invoice which CIF Mumbai from Singapore that means insurance freight from Singapore to Mumbai was included in the value, however the Tug was transported from China to Singapore on its own propulsion therefore expenses on account of transport from China to Singapore was not included in the invoice therefore the same was escaped while declaring the price. He submits that there was no malafide intention on the part of the importer in declaring the value. He submits that dispute remained the only the quantum of loading in the value. The adjudicating authority despite giving him actual expenses on account of freight and other expenses straight away loaded 20% of the FOB value as freight and insurance cost was added on the basis of premium of Marine Hull Policy. He submits that the appellant during the adjudication have submitted the actual details of the expenses incurred during the transportation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the policy but total premium mentioned in the policy cannot be added as the said amount as the same was neither paid by the appellant nor entire is related to transit period of Tug till it arrive in India, therefore adjudicating authority made serious error by adding entire insurance premium in the assessable value. In support, he placed reliance on this Tribunals decision in the case of Prince Marine Transport Services Pvt Ltd Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs(Imports), Mumbai[2014-TIOL-2438-CESTAT-MUM] 3. Shri. D.S. Maan, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 5. The fact of the case is not much in dispute except the quantum. The Tug was delivered to the appellant at China Port and the same was transported on its own propulsion from China to Singapore and thereafter Singapore to Mumbai. The dispute raised was that appellant has not included the expenses such as cost of transportation, insurance incurred during the transportation of Tug from China to Singapore. However the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,43,76,498.00 LESS Items on board, declared in the Bill of Entry for Home Consumption:- Marine Gas Oil Lubricating Oils Grease Paints Total of expenses already declared in the B/L 37,102.81 11,141.76 163.50 413.00 48,821.07 16,93,743.00 5,08,621.00 7,464.00 18,853.00 22,28,081.00 Freight AND insurance considered in CIF value as per Bill of Entry: Freight USD 77617.64 Insurance:USD 780 78,397.64 35,78,853.00 Total (B) 1,87,710.04 85,68,964.00 Differential duty as may be charged @ 15.15%-(C) 12,98,198.00 We find that as regard all the above mentioned details of expenses, the appellant have submitted the relevant invoices. As per Rule 10(2)(a) proviso (i) in case of cost of transport is not ascertainable then 20% of the FOB value of the goods shall be add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices Pvt ltd (supra), wherein it was held as under: 5.3 As regards the re-determination of value, we find that the Commissioner has adopted a rate of 21.125% of the cost towards freight and insurance. The appellant had given details of the expenditure incurred by them for the transport of the vessel from Dubai to India. In such a situation, the Commissioner could not have added freight and insurance @21.125%. Since the vessel had come on its own motion, only the actual cost of transportation incurred should have been added for determination of assessable value. The above judgment directly supports the case in hand. As regard the penalties imposed on the appellant company, as well as Director and employee of the appellant company, we find that from the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any malafide intention of the appellant to evade Custom duty of ₹ 12 lacs where they had discharged huge amount of customs duty amounting to ₹ 3.67 crores. It is only inadvertent mistake occurred on the part of the appellant in not including cost of transportation, insurance and other expenses for the voyage of the Tug from China to Singap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
