2007 (2) TMI 217 - AT - Customs

In respect of valuation of the vessel, appellant had failed to provide any reason for the reduction of price from the original invoice price, hence claim for lower value is rejected in respect of bunker and oil, appellant had failed to prove that bunkers and oils on which duty was charged were contained in engine, hence claim for exemption is rejected in respect of food stuff also, exemption was rightly denied matter remanded to Comm. (A) regarding includibility of landing charges

Summary

Issues: Valuation of vessel, Dutiability on bunker and oil, Durability of foodstuff, Inclusion of landing charges

Valuation of vessel:
The appellant purchased a vessel based on a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for a total price, later claimed to be reduced due to misdescription of insulation material. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim, stating that the addendum was not in accordance with the original MOA. Citing precedents, it was held that valuation must be as per the price indicated in the first MOA. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed correct in law.

Dutiability on bunker and oil:
The Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept the appellant's claim regarding duty on bunker and oil, referring to a Surveyor report and a CBEC Circular. The report stated the vessel had sufficient bunkers and fresh water, while the Circular specified exemptions only for bunkers contained in the engines. The appellant failed to provide evidence to contradict these findings, leading to the rejection of their claim.

Durability of foodstuff:
In this issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a Tribunal decision and denied the exemption for foodstuff. The appellant did not present any grounds to challenge this decision, resulting in the upholding of the Commissioner's findings.

Inclusion of landing charges:
The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the issue of landing charges was not considered in the original order-in-original, but there was a clear discussion on duty payable including landing charges. As this issue was not addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the case was remanded for fresh consideration specifically on this point. The appeal on other aspects was rejected, and only the inclusion of landing charges was remanded for further review.

(Pronounced in the open Court)