9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant are ship breakers. The appellant entered into a MOA dated 28.12.2010 with the cash seller namely M/s Advance Distribution Company Limited for purchase of ship with a declared LDT of 10386 MT for USD 4947488. The cash buyer namely, M/s Advance Distribution Company Limited had purchased the ship from the ship owner "M.V. HORIZON 1" with declared LDT as 10386 MT at price of 4906773 USD. When the ship arrived and was inspected by the surveyor and the port officer found that the LDT of the ship was 10200 MT and not 10,386 MT as declared at the time of making of MOA. The MOA were therefore, amended. In the revised MOA dated 10.01.2011 between M/s Horizon Bulk S.A. Nevis, the ship owner and M/s Advance distribution Company, the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of LT amounting to USD 179.08 and the value of tail shaft amounting to USD 5478.88. 2.1 Learned counsel pointed out that in similar circumstances in the case of M/s Chaudhary Ship Breakers 2010 (259) ELT 161 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that if the goods at the time of import are found to be different from the goods for which the agreement was made then the revised price can be accepted for the purpose of payment of customs duty under Section 14 of the Customs Act. Learned counsel argued that in similar circumstances, Tribunal in the case of Hussain Sheth Ispat has given relief vide Order No. 11381 of 2023 dated 28.06.2023. 3. Learned Authorized Representative relies on the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e records. It can be seen from clause 1 of the MOA dated 28.7.2011, that parties have agreed a lump sum purchase price of USD 5,815,747; there is no reference to LDT made for arriving at the purchase price by the parties to the agreement, in other words purchase price agreed between the parties is not in proportion to the LDT. Further, it is not the case of revenue that any consideration over and above the agreed purchase price has been paid by the importer to the foreign seller. Revenue has sought to assess higher duty only on the basis of commercial invoice submitted vide letter dated 4.7.2011 wherein details of additional LDT of 401.323 MT is mentioned. There is otherwise no corroboration whether LDT mentioned in the MOA and survey repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no other evidence on record to show any extra payment to the seller or flow back of money. The payment have been made by cheque through letter of credit. As such without going in the question as to whether LDT declared by the appellant was correct or not, we find that the LDT is not a relevant factor for arriving at the assessable value of the goods especially in respect of the vessel imported in the year 2003 when the tariff was changed and the duty was required to be paid only on the basis of ad valorem as also on the basis of LDT. It was in these circumstances that LDT gained importance for the period prior to 2003 and was required to be correctly arrived at, as duty was ad valorem + Rs 1400/- per Light Displacement Tonnage. In the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
