2004 (7) TMI 124 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against impugned order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) relating to final assessment order.
2. Discrepancy in valuation of vessel in Bill of Entry and original MOA.
3. Claim of short-levied duty by the department.
4. Cross-objection by appellants supporting Deputy Commissioner's final assessment order.
5. Consideration of various survey reports and documents.
6. Legal grounds for demanding duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act.
7. Review of assessment under Section 129D of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was directed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which allowed the revenue's appeal against the order-in-original relating to the final assessment order dated 20-3-2002 in respect of a specific Bill of Entry.

2. The discrepancy arose in the valuation of a vessel between the original Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and the Bill of Entry filed by the importer. The department claimed that duty had been short-levied by not considering the vessel's value as per the MOA, resulting in a difference of Rs. 3,75,010.

3. The department contended that the Deputy Commissioner had not considered the original MOA value while finalizing the assessment, leading to the short-levied duty amount. The department also argued that they were not part of the survey that resulted in a reduced valuation of the vessel.

4. The appellants filed a cross-objection supporting the Deputy Commissioner's final assessment order as legal and correct. They presented various submissions, including details about the vessel's arrival, discrepancies in survey reports, and the lack of extra payment made for the vessel.

5. Various survey reports and documents were considered during the proceedings, highlighting discrepancies in the vessel's description, the presence of double skin, and conflicting information regarding the reduction in the vessel's value.

6. The Tribunal analyzed the legal grounds for demanding duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the necessity of issuing a demand notice under this section for the collection of short-levied duty, regardless of the outcome of the appeal filed under Section 129D.

7. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming duty liability against the appellants due to value enhancement, emphasizing the procedural requirement of issuing a demand notice under Section 28 for collecting short-levied duty.