9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t "the Act") relates to the determination of transaction value of ships/vessel, imported by each of the respondents on "as-is/where is" basis, under Section 14 of the Act for the purpose of levy of customs duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. In all these appeals, the respondent-importers had imported ships for breaking purposes under respective Memorandums of Agreements (MOA) on a lump sum price. However, subsequently addendums were entered into between the sellers of the ship and the importers reducing the negotiated price on account of certain shortcomings and missing parts. The short controversy is whether or not the reduced price mentioned in the addendum has any bearing on the determination of the value of the ship for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e description of the generator in Clause 19 of the MOA as also to read the words as "under tow" for the words "under own power." By virtue of the said addendum, the price of the vessel was reduced to US $ 4,88,072 i.e. US $ 104 per long ton. 5. The vessel arrived at the Alang anchorage on 15th February 1999. The survey report was submitted on 16th February 1999, and it stated that the said vessel arrived under tow. The bill of entry was filed on 19th February 1999, wherein the importer disclosed the reduced price of the vessel as per the addendum. In the said bill of entry, the reason for reduction of price was shown as "major discrepancy found in the generator of captioned vessel was not in working condition." 7. The appeal f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had expressed the view that in cases where the price of the vessel has been reduced by an addendum to the original agreement, the acceptance of the price must turn on the genuineness of the addendum, and such addendum which appears to be self-serving documents cannot be given effect to. 11. In all the appeals before us, the importer had adduced cogent reasons for the reduction in price which had not been rebutted by the revenue as self-serving evidence. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal while holding that difference in price was justified, has observed that there is no dispute that what had been imported was different from what had been agreed to be imported and there was no provision in the agreement to take note of the difference. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
