9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch after considering the issue referred to them, answered the reference by their order dated 26.2.2007 and, sent the matter to the refereal Bench for passing appropriate order. Accordingly, these appeals are taken up for final disposal. 3. The relevant facts of the case relating to these appeals are brought out in the submissions of learned D.R. as recorded in the Order of the Larger Bench, which are reproduced below: He then invited attention to the memorandum of agreement, entered into by the two respondents M/s. Lucky Steel Industries and Y.S. Investment under which purchase price of vessel was indicated as US$ 122 per one longer tone of LDT and US$ 133 per longer ton of LDT in the case of Lucky Steel Industries and Y.S. Investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r's option. Subsequently four addendums were issued, two on 15.10.1998, 3rd on 27.10.1998 and 4th on 23.11.1998. While the addendum carried out by first two addendums were of minor nature, the addendum issued on 27.10.1998 called for a reduction in price from US $ 133 per long ton to US$ 126 per long ton. The 4th addendum issued on 23.11.1998 inter alia provided for further reduction in price to US$ 120 per long ton if the vessel is beached on or before 24.11.1998 on its own power etc. Both these addendum did not indicate any reason for reduction in price. 4. It is noticed that in these present cases the original memorandum of agreement was for the sale of the ships in as is where is basis with an option for arbitration proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the new/reduced price under the new/revised contract will be admissible, provided it is in conformity with the value as defined under Section 14 of the Customs Act read with the Valuation Rules. 6. As already mentioned there is no justifiable reason for lower price adopted by the addendum entered into at a date latter than the date of import of the vessels. Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in accepting the lower prices is not justifiable. Therefore, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as they relate to acceptance of lower value for the vessels is set aside and the order-in-original is restored. Both the appeals are, therefore, allowed on the aspect of valuation of vessels. (Dictated pronounced in the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
