9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er M/s. Export Trade Corporation Ltd., Hong Kong had sold the vessel MV Karakoram having LDT of 4150 MT = 4084 LT to the appellants through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), dated 2-6-2000, at a price of US $ 756,561. The importer filed the Bill of Entry on 22-6-2001 declaring the total price of US $ 726,952 and US $ 115,70 (diff. 0.65 MT LT) for 4150 MT LDT (4048.65 MT LT) on the strength of an Addendum I II dated Nil. According to the importer, the said addendum was necessitated, as the Vessel was not as per the MOA. The Bill of Entry was finally assessed at the price of US $ 7,26,952." 3. The department in the review appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) had claimed that, the Deputy Commissioner, while finalising their assessment has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that there is no mention of date on the Addendum. He could not show any document to give any indication about the date on which the same was signed. On another specific question as to how the reduction in value was claimed in the Bill of Entry dated 22-6-2001, when the Survey Report is of 23-6-2001, the representatives showed their inability to explain. It was pointed out to them that Ericson and Richards had conducted a Survey on 16-6-2001 wherein they had mentioned vide report No. 2001/ERG-208-D at Paragraph 3 that the vessel is Single Skin. On this, they stated that they would not comment on this." 4. It was further stated that the vessel was purchased at a price, which has been shown in the Bill of Entry, and no extra payment wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch a notice. The exercise of reviewing the order under Section 129D of the Customs Act provides no saving to the department against the requirements of issue of show cause notice under Section 28. Therefore, even if one were to assume a favourable result in department's favour on the appeal filed, in terms of Section 129D, even then, the same would not help the revenue to collect the duty, which escaped as a result of wrong decision on the valuation, without issuing a demand under Section 28 of the Act. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that, on conclusion of proceedings under Section 129D of the Act in revenue's favour will automatically lead to confirmation of duty demand without is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
