Chem Trader Tankers Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
These appeals were filed against Order-in-Original dated 11 March 2022 by which the Commissioner of Customs confirmed recovery of differential freight under section 28(8) of the Customs Act, 1962 with interest from the importers, ordered confiscation of the imported goods with redemption fine, and imposed penalties on the importers under sections 114A and 114AA and on the co-noticees under sections 112(a) and 114AA.
During hearing, it was brought on record that the same Order-in-Original had already been challenged by the main noticees (importers) before the Tribunal. In a common order dated 11 May 2023, the Tribunal had set aside the impugned order in entirety. That decision dealt with allegations that the cargo was clandestinely loaded at Iranian ports despite bills of lading showing other origins, leading to enhancement of freight, demand of differential duty, confiscation, and penalties.
The Tribunal in the earlier order held that there was no evidence that importers had insisted on sourcing from Iran or had any commercial engagement with Iranian suppliers. The findings were based mainly on vessel movement assumptions and statements of vessel masters, without official confirmation from port authorities at Oman or UAE. In the absence of reliable evidence, the invoice values were held to reflect valid transaction value under section 14 of the Customs Act.
