LexM/S COROMANDAL FERTILISERS LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS COROMANDAL FERTILISERS LTD. A v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS DECEMBER 14, 1999 [S.P. BHARUCHA AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] B Customs duty-Assessment of-Landing charges-Assessed at a percentage-Assistant Collector adding stevedoring charges separately- Held, Landing charges cover the totality of all that an importer expends to bring imported goods to land-It is open to customs authorities not to assess C landing charges at a percentage and to assess them at actuals-But if they do assess them on a percentage basis, they cover thereby all aspects of landing charges and it is not open to them then to seek to add any amount thereto on the basis that the same was not covered under the landing charges. D~ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2233-42 of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.87 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No.C/1086/79-A, and C/ E 1895 to 1903/83-A with C/COD/554 to 562/86-A. and C/Misc/269/86-A WITH Civil Appeal No. 4307 of 1996. From the Judgment and order dated 5.12.95 of the Customs, Excise and F Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A No. C/2237/86-A in Order No. 962 of 1995-A. S. Ganesh, Ravinder Narain, Janesh Baweja and S. Sukumaran for Mis. JBD & Co., for the Appellant. G N.K. Bajpai, Hemant Sharma and P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : ~ A brief question arises in these appeals, namely, having, for the purposes H 329 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A of assessment of Customs duty, assessed landing charges at the rate of 1.4 per cent of the CIF value of imported goods, can the Customs authorities also add to their value stevedoring charges. The appellants manufacture fertilizers. For this purpose they imported large quantities of rock phosphate and sulphur. The said goods were brought B to India in chartered ships arranged by the M.M.T.C., the canalising agency at the relevant time, namely, 1971 to 1975. The said goods were purchased by the appellants on the high seas. The responsibility of unloading the said goods in India was theirs. For the purpose of efficient unloading; the appellant maintained their own wharf at Visakhapatnam, unloading equipment and staff C for the same. Landing charges of the said goods were assessed at 1.4 per cent of the CIF value thereof. The Assistant Collector said that the 1.4 per cent landing charges did not include stevedoring charges and he added them separately, calculating them upon the basis of, inter alia, unloading labour charges, D Customs staff overtime, port hire charges for dinning hall, fuel, electricity, depreciation, approximate maintenance cost, administrative overheads and notional interest on capital. He found that the stevedoring charges ranged between Rs. 5.86 to Rs 9.42 per metric tonne of the said goods. E F G The appellants succeeded before the Appellate Collector, who took the view that landing charges and stevedoring or unloading charges were one and the same. The Customs authorities challenged the correctness of his order before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and it is the order of the Tribunal which is now in question before us. According to the Tribunal, the 1.4 per cent landing charges already added to the value of the said goods comprised wharfage charges and conveyance charges from the wharf to the transit sheds but not the unloading charges from ship to berth. The unloading charges had, therefore, in its view, to be computed and added on and they could only be computed, as had been done by the Assistant Collector, but with some marginal difference. We asked Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel for the Customs authorities, repeatedly how stevedoring or unloading charges could be added on the value of goods when the Customs authorities had already loaded the value of goods with landing charges at the rate of 1.4 per cent of their cIF value. We do not think that we have received any satisfactory answer to the H question at the conchi!:ion of the hearing. --- CORO MAND AL FERTILISERS LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 331 Mr. Bajpai referred to Section 42 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and A submitted, quite rightly, that the Board of Trustees of a major port furnish a variety of services, including receiving, removing, shifting, transporting, storing and delivering goods brought within their premises. In his submi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.