TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22-10-2010 [2010 (259) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)], remanded the case back to the Tribunal with the following observations :- 17. As afore-stated, in the instant case, the Tribunal has not examined the genuineness of the addendum, and has proceeded to reject the appeal of the appellant on the short ground that there was no provision for price variation in the original MOA. We may, however, add that the Commissioner (Appeals) did examine the cogency of the reasons for price reduction though he was not convinced to accept the same. 18. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal needs to examine the matter afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside, and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SPARE TAIL SHAFT : NIL GENERATORS CRANES : 3 34 EACH 375KVA 400V 50HZ 3 3-TON AND 8 5 TONS DERRICK : l 60-TON (NOT WORKING BUT NOT REMOVED) 2.1 It was further argued by Shri Nainawati (Advocate) that the description of Ballast tanks was Double Bottom Tanks, Fore Peak Tank, AFT Peak Tank, N WingT. It was his case that when appellant came to know of the double skin nature of the vessel s side tanks, it was understood by the appellant that there was bound to be additional weight loss and accordingly appellant negotiated lower value from US $ 992887.20 to US $ 929388.60 as per adden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the judgment of Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad v. Guru Ashish Ship Breakers - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 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) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)]. The Hon ble Supreme Court has directed us to see the genuineness of the addendum dated 8th December, 1997 entered between the appellant and supplier. Shri Anand Nainawati (Advocate) has based his argument that as per the Trim Stability booklet for the vessel under consideration, the ballast tanks of the vessel were side tanks, double bottom tanks, forepeak tanks and aft peak tank . It is appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 8-12-1997 was US $ 929388.60. It will be improper if importer is asked to pay customs duty as an amount more than what was the 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 8-12-1997, is genuine and is required to be accepted for assessment purpose in the case of the appellant, as the case law relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|