2015 (9) TMI 1019 - SC - Customs

Valuation - Revenue contends that value mentioned in MoA dated 23.08.2000 should have been the valuation for the purpose of levying the import duty - Held that - price was genuinely revised and a lesser price was agreed to be received by the owner of the vessel and therefore, there was nothing wrong on the part of the appellant to declare that price in the Bill of Entry. We, thus, are of the opinion that the duty should have been assessed on the basis of value declared by the appellant and the assessment made on 18.03.2002 by the assessing officer did not call for any interference. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported vessel for the purpose of levying import duty

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in ship breaking business, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the owner of a vessel for import. An amendment to the MoA was made, reducing the price marginally. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry disclosing the revised price, which was accepted by the assessing officer for duty assessment. The Revenue contended that the valuation should be based on the original MoA, leading to an appeal. The Commissioner and CESTAT upheld the Revenue's stance. However, the Supreme Court found the price revision genuine and upheld the appellant's valuation in the Bill of Entry. The Court concluded that duty assessment based on the declared value was correct, setting aside the CESTAT's order and allowing the appeal.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case and the amended MoA, determined that the revised price was valid. As the appellant declared the revised price in the Bill of Entry, the duty assessment based on this value was deemed appropriate. Consequently, the Court set aside the CESTAT's order and allowed the appeal, affirming the duty assessment conducted by the assessing officer. Additionally, a related appeal, Civil Appeal No. 3892 of 2006, was allowed in light of the decision in Civil Appeal No. 3891 of 2006.