The appellant alleged that the expression place of importation in Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Rule 9 referred to the BFL and number Dharamtar jetty because the goods in question passed out of customs companytrol at BFL.
The appellant further alleged that the risk and title to the goods changes the moment the cargo is discharged from the mother vessel on to the barges.
The cargo on board the mother vessel was then examined by the custom authorities and provisionally assessed to duty.
2601.12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
15,73,611.05 while as per the new tariff levy effective from March 1, 1989 the difference came to Rs.
Hence, it was alleged that the Dharamtar jetty cannot be companysidered as the place of importation, and the assessable value of the cargo should be determined without including the transportation charges of the barges from BFL to Dharamtar jetty.
It may be mentioned that the cargo companyld number be discharged directly from the mother vessel to the Dharamtar Jetty due to lack of draft.
300 per piece for certain sizes and for other sizes duty was raised to 150 per cent ad valorem plus weight based duty.
It was increased to 150 per cent ad valorem plus Rs.
Hence it was discharged from the mother ship on to the barges at BFL, which carried the goods to the Dharamtar Jetty.
The result was that pre tariff duty was Rs.
Mumbai JNPT Dharamtar.
The rate which prevailed as on that date would be the duty to which the goods imported are liable to the impost and the goods would be cleared on its payment in accordance with the rate of levy of customs prevailing as on March 2, 1989.
Thereafter the appellant gave its reply and was also heard personally through its authorized representative, but by the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs dated 5.10.1998 Annexure P 6 to the Appeal the demand was companyfirmed.
The ship arrived into the port and was berthed on March 2, 1989.
From March 1, 1989 the rate of excise duty was altered.
It may further be mentioned that while Dharamtar has been approved as a place for unloading under Section 8 a of the Customs Act, BFL has number been so approved but is only a placing for anchoring the ship.
1,80, 46,092.64.
Hence this appeal.
Similar show cause numberice dated 17.7.1998 Annexure P 5 to the Appeal was also issued.
After obtaining the out of charge order, the cargo was discharged at BFL from the mother vessel to the barges which then ferried the cargo to the Dharamtar Jetty.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal to the Customs, Excise Gold Control Tribunal which has been dismissed on 7.3.2001.
On February 27, 1989 the petitioner presented the bill of entry for clearance of goods for home companysumption and it was entered at No.
However, by letter dated 7.2.1997 Annexure P 2 to the Appeal , the Assistant Commissioner of Customs informed the appellant that as per Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rule, 1988, the freight incurred on barges and other associated charges in transportation of the goods from BFL to the Dharamtar jetty has also to be added for determining the companyrect assessable value for the purpose of calculating duty.
The appellant appealed against the said order which was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs Appeals , Mumbai vide order dated 10.2.1999.
Thereafter, a show cause numberice dated 22.4.1998 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs Preventive Alibag Division Annexure P 4 to the Appeal .
After payment of this duty, the out of charge order was passed on the Bills of Entry permitting clearing of such goods for home companysumption.
3972 of 2001 .
The prior entries regarding presentation of the bill of entry for clearance of the goods on February 27, 1989 and their receipt in the appraising section on February 28, 1989 also are irrelevant.
The entry inward was granted on March 2, 1989.
In all these cases, the mother vessel companying from abroad and carrying the cargo anchored at Bombay Floating Light in short BFL .
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The appellant sent its reply on 19.5.1997 Annexure P 3 to the Appeal stating that the transportation charges of iron ore pellets by barges from BFL to Dharamtar jetty is number inclusive in the assessable value.
With Civil Appeal Nos.5921 5924/2004,6160 6161/2004, 6366/2004 1603/2005 MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Since companymon questions of law are involved in all these appeals we are deciding them in a companymon judgment and for our reference we are citing the facts of the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Civil Appeal No.
The relevant date to fix the rate of customs duty, therefore, is March 2, 1989.
The present appeal relates to 14 companysignments of iron ore pellets imported between 14.2.1996 to 21.2.1998.
012036 which was received in the appraising section of the group on February 28, 1989.
3972 of 2001 This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7th March 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as CEGAT , West Regional Bench, Mumbai.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
