9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at was the consideration for the transaction. There was a genuine reason for reduction of the price on certain facts which came to the knowledge of the appellant after importation. The actual transaction value paid as per the addendum dated 08.12.1997, is genuine and is required to be accepted for assessment purpose in the case of the appellant - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/86 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 17-9-2013 - M V Ravindran And H K Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Anand Nainawati, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri G P Thomas, AR PER : H K Thakur This appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by New Delhi Bench of CESTAT under final order No. 500/05 dated 02.02.2005 by upholding the Order-in-Appeal No. 391/2003(14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him which is as follow:- "The Vessel is described as follows:- Type M.V. XIN TONG BUILT 1972 UKRAINE FLAG/CLASS ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENANDENES/CCSRS GRT/NRT 8.756/5.735 LDT 5.865 MT/5.770 LT AS PER T/STABILITY BOOKLETS LENGTH/BREADTH/DEPTH 155.70/20.65/12.30M MAIN ENGINE B W 6DPH74/160-2 RATED 6.620KW 9,000BHP WORKING PROPELLER ONE BRONZE SPARE PROPELLER ONE BRONZE SPARE TAIL SHAFT NIL GENERATORS CRANES 3x34 EACH 375KVA 400V 50HZ 3x3-TON AND 8x5 TONS DERRICK 1x60-ton (NOT WORKING BUT NOT REMOVED) 2.1 It was further argued by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as accepted by the seller of the vessel inasmuch as the addendum dated 08.12.1997 was signed. Further, appellant paid only US$ 929388.60 on 18.6.1998 to the seller of the vessel as is evident from certificate dated 10.07.2000 issued by Dena Bank'. 3. Shri G.P. Thomas, A.R. appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that price reduction was claimed after the importation, which is not permissible as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the judgment of Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad vs. Guru Ashish Ship Breakers [2003 (157) ELT 277 (Tri. Mum.). 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records including the directions contained in the Supreme Court order dated 22.10.2010 in the case of the appellant [2010 (259) ELT 161 (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r addendum dated 08.12.1997 when L/C dated 05.12.1997 was opened for US $ 992887.20 as per MOA dated 19.11.1997. 4.1 From the above facts, it can be safely inferred that there was a genuine cause for reduction in the price of the imported vessel and the seller was also convinced that there is need for reduction in the price earlier agreed and accordingly accepted the lower price negotiated between the seller and the appellant. Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 also talks of the price which is either paid or payable to the seller. In this case, both the amounts paid and payable as per addendum dated 08.12.1997 was US $ 929388.60. It will be improper if importer is asked to pay customs duty as an amount more than what was the consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
