9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... la had imported 98 consignments of HSD and SKO during the period from May 1994 to December 1998 as a canalizing agency on behalf of himself as well as for M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kandla (BPCL for short) and M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kandla (HPCL for short). The respective oil Companies filed Ex-bond Bills of Entry which were provisionally assessed. The quantity which was meant for IOCL was warehoused in the warehouse of the IOCL and quantity meant for BPCL and HPCL was warehoused in their respective warehouse / shore tanks for which each one of them were holding proper Customs Warehouse License. M/s. IOCL, BPCL and HPCL paid duty provisionally at the time of clearance from the warehouse by filing ex-bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notices. After a lot of litigation upto the level of this Tribunal, the matter was finally adjudicated vide impugned order dated 11.03.2013 wherein the learned Adjudicating Authority has passed the following order:- "1. All the provisional assessment of all the ex-bond bills of entry presented / filed by IOCL, BPCL and HPCL against 98 warehousing/into bond bills of entry filed / presented by IOCL as a canalizing agent, as indicated in the annexure enclosed to this order (the warehousing bills of entry are indicated vessel-wise as covered in respective 6 show cause notices earlier issued on this issue as indicated in Para 1 and 2 of this order), stand finalized in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the basis of actual s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o challenged by M/s. IOCL, BPCL and HPCL before the Commissioner (Appeals) contesting the levy of interest in terms of Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. As, it was the contention of the appellant that Section 18(3) was inserted into Customs Act, 1962 only with effect from 13.07.2006 and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has wrongly invoked this provision as in their case the period of import pertains to 05/1994 to 12/1998. M/s. BPCL and HPCL has also contested that no show cause notice issued to them before passing the impugned order and despite specific directions from the Tribunal and therefore, order-in-original has been issued in violation of principles of natural justice. The levy of interest has also been contested as mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the importer/ appellants in their warehouse/ shore tanks. We find that the matter has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Refinery & Petrochem vs. CC, Mangalore - 2015 (323) ELT 433 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:- "14. The Tribunal's judgment dated 6th February, 2006 gives several reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the bill of lading quantity alone is to be looked at for the purpose of determining the value of goods imported. The first reason that it gives is that duty has to be on the total payment made by the assessee irrespective of the quantity received. The second reason given is that an ad valorem duty would necessarily lead to this result but duty levied at the spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amend Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Re [AIR 1963 SC 1760 = (1964) 3 SCR 787 sub nom Sea Customs Act (1878), S. 20(2), Re] SCR at p. 823 observed as follows : "Truly speaking, the imposition of an import duty, by and large, results in a condition which must be fulfilled before the goods can be brought inside the customs barriers, i.e., before they form part of the mass of goods within the country." It would appear to us that the import of goods into India would commence when the same cross into the territorial waters but continues and is completed when the goods become part of the mass of goods within the country; the taxable event being reached at the time when the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value" which occurs in the Customs Valuation Rules has to be read under Rules 4 and 9 as reflecting the aforesaid statutory position, namely, that valuation of imported goods is only at the time and place of importation. 17. The Tribunal's reasoning that somehow when customs duty is ad valorem the basis for arriving at the quantity of goods imported changes, is wholly unsustainable. Whether customs duty is at a specific rate or is ad valorem makes not the least difference to the above statutory scheme. Customs duty whether at a specific rate or ad valorem is not leviable on goods that are pilfered, lost or destroyed until a bill of entry for home consumption is made or an order to warehouse the goods is made. This, as has been stated abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
