2025 (6) TMI 609 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Short payment of duty by not including 20% of the value for transportation charges and 1.125% of the value on account of insurance charges in the assessable value - HELD THAT - The issue which is to be decided by us is whether the transportation charges in terms of Rule 10(b) of the Valuation Rules 2007 are to be includable in the assessable value or not. The said issue has been examined by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case M/S JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (I) (AIRPORT) MUMBAI 2021 (5) TMI 908 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) wherein this Tribunal has held that ATF which is filled in the fuel tank of the aircraft is actually required to fly the aircraft and is a consumable for the airlines. It cannot in such circumstances be urged that ATF is being transported through the aircraft. A different situation would however arise if an oil company specifically imports ATF in large containers/tanker as goods or as cargo for the purpose of selling the same to airlines. There can be no doubt that in such a situation the cost of transportation for import of ATF would have to be included in the transaction value for the purpose of determining the customs duty liability. As the issue has already been settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Jet Airways India Ltd therefore it is held that the transportation cost is not to be included in the value of remnant ATF for determining the assessable value in this case. Conclusion - The transportation cost element is not includable in the customs valuation of remnant ATF carried in aircraft tanks for consumption by airlines distinguishing it from ATF imported as cargo. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the customs valuation and duty liability on Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) carried by an airline operating international flights, particularly:

• Whether the transportation charges incurred on imported ATF are includable in the assessable value for customs duty under Rule 10(b) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.
• Whether the airline's failure to file Bills of Entry and import manifest declarations for remnant ATF on arrival from foreign destinations constitutes a violation attracting customs duty and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
• The applicability of customs duty on remnant ATF converted for domestic use without payment of duty, and the consequent liability for interest and penalty.
• Whether the imported ATF is liable for confiscation and imposition of redemption fine.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Inclusion of Transportation Charges in Assessable Value

The legal framework governing customs valuation is primarily Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Rule 10(b) specifically addresses the inclusion of certain costs such as transportation charges in the transaction value for customs duty calculation.

The Court referred extensively to a precedent set by the Larger Bench of the same Tribunal in a previous case involving the same appellant. There, it was held that ATF loaded in an aircraft's fuel tank is not transported as "goods" for delivery into India but is rather a consumable required for the operation of the aircraft. Hence, the airline is not importing ATF as cargo but as fuel for its own use. Consequently, transportation charges related to the ATF are not to be included in the assessable value under Rule 10(b) for customs duty purposes.

The Tribunal reasoned that if an oil company imported ATF in large containers or tankers as cargo for sale, transportation costs would be includable. However, this situation does not apply to fuel carried in aircraft tanks for consumption by the airline itself.

Applying this precedent to the facts, the Court concluded that the transportation cost component should not be added to the value of remnant ATF for customs valuation.

Failure to File Import Manifest and Bill of Entry

Under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962, importers are required to declare imported goods in the import manifest. Section 46 mandates filing of a Bill of Entry for clearance of imported goods before they are cleared for home consumption or domestic use.

The appellant did not file Bills of Entry for the remnant ATF upon arrival from foreign destinations before commencing domestic operations. This omission was a violation of the statutory requirements.

However, the Court's analysis focused on whether this violation translated into a duty liability given the nature of the goods (remnant ATF) and the valuation principles. Since the transportation charges were excluded from valuation, the demand for additional customs duty on that basis was set aside.

Duty Liability on Remnant ATF Converted for Domestic Use

Sections 47(1) and 47(2) of the Customs Act govern the clearance of imported goods for home consumption and the payment of duty. The appellant used the remnant imported ATF for domestic flights without payment of duty.

The adjudicating authority initially held that the appellant was liable to pay customs duty on the remnant ATF, including additional value components such as 20% national transportation charges and 1.125% insurance charges, which the appellant had not paid.

The Tribunal, however, overturned this demand based on the Larger Bench's precedent that transportation charges are not includable in the assessable value of remnant ATF. Consequently, the demand for customs duty, interest, and penalty related to these charges was set aside.

Penalty and Confiscation

The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 6.00 Crores but did not order confiscation of the imported ATF or impose redemption fines.

Since the Tribunal found no sustainable demand for customs duty, it held that no penalty was imposable. It also upheld the decision not to confiscate the goods or impose redemption fines, affirming that remnant ATF is not liable for confiscation under the circumstances.

Conclusions

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confirmed demand for customs duty, interest, and penalty. It held that:

• Transportation charges under Rule 10(b) of the Valuation Rules, 2007, are not includable in the assessable value of remnant ATF carried in aircraft tanks.
• The failure to file Bills of Entry and import manifest declarations, while a procedural violation, did not justify the confirmed demand for additional customs duty based on transportation charges.
• The remnant ATF used for domestic flights without payment of duty did not attract customs duty on the basis of transportation cost inclusion.
• No penalty or confiscation was warranted in the absence of a sustainable duty demand.

Significant Holdings

The Tribunal preserved the crucial legal reasoning from the Larger Bench ruling, stating:

"48. It is not in dispute that the appellant has discharged the duty liability on the price of remnant ATF for more than a decade treating it to be imported goods taking into consideration the prevalent IOCL price. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the ATF which is filled in the fuel tank of an aircraft is actually being transported through an aircraft. The answer clearly is that the airlines are not transporting ATF for delivery to India. ATF which is filled in the fuel tank of the aircraft is actually required to fly the aircraft and is a consumable for the airlines. It cannot, in such circumstances, be urged that ATF is being transported through the aircraft. A different situation would, however, arise if an oil company specifically imports ATF in large containers/tanker as "goods" or as cargo, for the purpose of selling the same to airlines. There can be no doubt that in such a situation the cost of transportation for import of ATF would have to be included in the transaction value for the purpose of determining the customs duty liability."

The core principle established is that the transportation cost element is not includable in the customs valuation of remnant ATF carried in aircraft tanks for consumption by airlines, distinguishing it from ATF imported as cargo.

Final determinations included setting aside the confirmed customs duty demand, interest, and penalty, and affirming no confiscation or redemption fine on the remnant ATF.