Panchmahal Steel Ltd. v. Collector Of Customs, Rajkot

[Order per : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. - Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for disposal of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri T.R. Malik SDR and perused the papers.

2. The short dispute in this appeal is as to whether demurrage charges for determination of assessable (value) are required to be added to the assessable value. Appellant imported certain goods from Malaysia. Due to various reasons, provisional assessment was made on taking bond and bank guarantee. Custom House called for information regarding demurrage charges paid in regard to the detention of the vessel. A certificate was produced working out the proportionate charges referable to the goods in question. Notice was issued to appellant demanding differential duty on the demurrage charges. Appellant resisted the notice. However, Assistant Collector confirmed the demand and his order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, the present Appeal.

3. According to the appeal memorandum, show cause notice was time barred and demurrage charges could not be added to the assessable value.

4. The provisional assessment was made on 14-3-1989. Final assessment was made on 31-5-1989. Notice was issued on 1-9-1989. It was, therefore, within six months from the date of provisional assessment and was within time. It is also pointed out that the notice was not in proper order. We find that all the relevant particulars are stated in the notice and, therefore, it was in order.

5. Appellant contends that demurrage charges could not be included in the assessable value on the strength of a decision in Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, (Tribunal). That case dealt with wharfage and demurrage charges paid to Port Trust and held that these charges cannot be regarded as landing charges and, therefore, cannot be included in the assessable value. This decision is of no assistance to the appellant, since the demurrage charges were not those paid to Port Trust but were charges for detention of vessel. In other words, they were charges which had to be paid for the detention of the vessel at the Port beyond the period contracted for. These charges are pre-landing stage charges and, therefore, would be part of the assessable value since there is nothing to indicate that they were not collected by the importer from the appellant.

6. For the reasons indicated above, we decline to interfere and dismiss the appeal.