TMI Blog1987 (5) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of issue of 29-2-1984; below the dates, it has a number BCH No. 1172/82. In this order the Collector (Appeals) disposed of 91 appeals from orders of the Assistant Collector; the 76 appeals we have before us now are from those 91 appeals. 3. The learned Counsel for these appellants, Mr. Ganesh, said that his contention for the purpose of these appeals before this bench is only that the addition of landing charges should have been not at the notional 0.75%, but at the actual charges charged by the Port Trust for the concerned consignments. However, he told the Tri. that he contends that landing charges are not at all liable to be added to the assessable value since they cannot legitimately form part of such value; but he would not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decades. It is not warranted to upset a long-standing practice simply because the party who imports the goods suddenly decides that the charge is incorrect. There is nothing illegal about the charge and, in fact, non-addition of the landing charges would make assessment incorrect, since an important component in the value of the goods when they enter Indian territorial markets would find no place in it. The goods are sold by the importers by adding landing charges, if not other charges, and he was quite sure that they add not 0.75%, but much more, thereby making illegal profits. 6. The learned Mr. Doiphode also said that the importers did not raise the question of actual charges before the Assistant Collector. They raised it only before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plea to add only actual charges was never raised before the Assistant Collector and he was never able to test the correctness of it himself in order to arrive at a judgment. The Collector (Appeals) apparently came lo the same conclusion, because he also did not touch upon this problem, though it appears to have been raised before him. 11. However, we will see how the present dispute before us develops and what its logical conclusions are. 12. The appeals filed to us against the order of the Collector (Appeals) have some very revealing passages in paragraph 4. This paragraph becomes very significant against the submission by Mr. Ganesh that the bills issued by the Port Trust for actual wharfage and demurrage should form the basis for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the calculations relevant to landing charges. 13. The appeal tells us in no uncertain terms that the Bombay Port Trust did not render any services in respect of landing and stevedoring the goods; that wharfage is distinct from landing and stevedoring charges; and that the customs made an error in treating these charges as landing charges. It they did so after all this clarification, they would be doubly peccant. 14. This is enough to demonstrate that the importers have not made out a case for adding actual charges instead of the notional flat rate of 0.75% as landing charges, since they have not even shown, there are actual charges different from the notional flat 0.75%. 15. The plea for the Tribunal to declare the principle in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
