9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssel M.V. Kupa for breaking at Ship Breaking Yard, Alang, under Memorandum of Agreement dated 2-7-1998. The vessel was agreed to be sold for US $ 9,60,750/-. It appears that the vessel was imported into India on 18-7-1998. Thereafter, the Memorandum of Agreement was modified by the first addendum made on 20-7-1998 and the physical delivery was taken on 23-7-1998. One more addendum was made on 25-7-1998 after the delivery was taken. According to the importer, by virtue of the modified Memorandum of Agreement, the purchase price of the vessel was brought down to US $ 9,45,000/- as against the original Memorandum of Agreement price of US $ 9,60,750/-. The importer presented Bill of Entry with the reduced price of US $ 9,45,000/-. The Bill of E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... $ 9,60,750/- as per the original Memorandum of Agreement. It was also held that the excess duty collected was refundable to the importer. 4. There is no dispute over the fact that the amendment in the Memorandum of Agreement dated 2-7-1998 was made after the vessel was imported into India on 18-7-1998. The first amendment was made on 20-7-1998 and thereafter again an amendment was made on 25-7-1998 by which amendments the price of the vessel was brought down to US $ 9,45,000/- from the originally stipulated price of US $ 9,60,750/-. In the context of a similar controversy, a Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Bhavnagar v. M/s. Lucky Steel Industries & M/s. Y.S. Investment, decided on 26-2-2007 held that : "Any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4(1) was the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India. The subsequent amendment in the Memorandum of Agreement after the importation of goods into India cannot be described as the transaction value during the course of international trade. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case where Memorandum of Understanding, the Agreement to Sell as well as the Bill of Sale were executed after the goods had arrived in India has held in paragraph 19 of the judgment in Udayani Ship Breakers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot, 2006 (195) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), that the appellant could not claim the sale in its favour on High Seas basis, as indicated in the agreement. 6. The ratio of the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
