2008 (5) TMI 57 - AT - Customs

Whether reduction in assessable value being claimed by the appellants on the ground that the actual items in the ship did not correspond to the original MOU is to be allowed - reduction was not quantified and reasons given were not detailed enough and vague moreover there was no discrepancy on receipt of the ship in terms of the first MOA - revision of assessable value as per second MOU is not warranted hence reduction in assessable value is not allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether reduction in assessable value based on discrepancies in the ship compared to the original MOU is permissible.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad raised the issue of whether a reduction in assessable value claimed by the appellants due to discrepancies between the actual items in the ship and the original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should be allowed. The appellant relied on a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in a previous case, which established that if items specified in the MOU are not found upon import, a different price may be determined. However, it was clarified that the price agreed upon in the MOU cannot be revised subsequently based on this decision.

The advocate for the appellant presented the facts, highlighting the discrepancies found in the vessel compared to the terms of the MOA. These included major removals of machinery spares, issues with oil purifiers, compressors, and generators, absence of spare anchor, lack of coating in side tanks, and removals in accommodation cabins and galley. Despite these discrepancies, it was observed that the main engine not being in working condition was already mentioned in the first MOA, and the second MOA only indicated that generators were not operating at full capacity without stating they were non-functional. Moreover, the reduction in price was not quantified adequately, and the reasons provided were vague and lacked detail.

Upon thorough examination, the Tribunal concluded that there was no substantial discrepancy upon receipt of the ship as per the terms of the first MOA. Therefore, the precedent set in the case of Lucky Steel Industries v. CC Bhavnagar was deemed applicable to the current situation. Consequently, the revision of the assessable value based on the second MOU was deemed unwarranted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Additionally, the cross-objection was also disposed of during the proceedings. The judgment was pronounced in court by the Tribunal.