2025 (7) TMI 575 - AT - Customs

Finalisation of provisionally assessed bills of entry - inclusion of various port charges such as pilotage mooring fees attendance fees of pilot pull back charges tug hire charges etc. in the assessable value paid by the ship agents on behalf of the master of the vessel - bills of entry filed during the period from February 2010 to August 2010 - HELD THAT - The matter to learned adjudicating authority with directions to consider the decision in the case of Nayara Energy Ltd. 2025 (4) TMI 834 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and decide the matter afresh. The remand shall be open. If the matter involves any of the charges not specially covered by the decision in Nayara Energy Ltd. even then the reasons should be given in the order after according full opportunity to the appellants. Matter is remanded. Appeals are allowed by way of remand.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT Ahmedabad) addressed the finalisation of provisionally assessed bills of entry involving inclusion of various port charges (pilotage, mooring fees, attendance fees of pilot, pull back charges, tug hire charges) in the assessable value paid by ship agents. The issue concerned bills from February to August 2010.Two show cause notices dated 10.11.2010 proposed rejecting M/s IOCL's request to exclude port charges from assessable value and inclusion of freight @20% of FOB value per the Proviso to Rule 10(2) of the Customs (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The notices also proposed adjustment of differential duty and charging interest under Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed these proposals, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals and remanded for re-calculation of assessable value.The Tribunal awaited the decision in M/s Nayara Energy Ltd. (2025 (4) TMI 834 CESTAT-Ahmedabad), which provided for an open remand on similar issues. Although the appellants argued Nayara did not cover all charges in dispute, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the case in light of Nayara Energy Ltd., directing that if any charges fall outside its scope, reasons must be given after full opportunity to appellants.The Tribunal held: "The remand shall be open. If the matter involves any of the charges not specially covered by the decision in Nayara Energy Ltd. (cited supra) even then the reasons should be given in the order after according full opportunity to the appellants." Appeals were allowed by way of remand; cross objections disposed accordingly.