INTERNATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
LAWS(CE)-2015-5-56
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on May 11,2015

INTERNATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JAI JAGDISH SHIP BREAKERS PVT. LTD. V/S. CC.,JAMNAGAR [REFERRED TO]
CHAUDHARY SHIP BREAKERS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.K.DAS, J. - (1.)The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that one M/s. Madhav Industrial Corporation, Bhavnagar imported an old vessel M.V. Dimitriy Mendeleev for a consideration of US $ 9,54,044/ - under Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) dated 26.4.2001. The Customs Officer had boarded the Vessel on 1.5.2001. Subsequently, IGM was amended to substitute the appellants name, and declared consideration of US $ 8,45,000/ - as per MoA dated 3.5.2001 with the foreign seller M/s. Dragon Navigation Inc., Liberia.
(2.)A show cause notice dtd 22.3.2005 was issued proposing the value for the purpose of assessment of the subject vessel should be US $ 9,54,044/ - as per first MoA dated 26.4.2001. It has been alleged that the price initially agreed US $ 9,54,044/ - when it was arrived on 30.4.2001 would be accepted and there is no reason to consider the value as per second MoA on 3.5.2001, as it was finalised after importation. The Adjudicating Authority finally assessed the Bill of Entry No SBY/22/2001 -2002 dtd 8.5.2001 and confirmed the demand of differential duty of Rs. 13,82,097.00 alongwith interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudicating order and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
(3.)The Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant drew the attention of the Bench MoA dated 3.5.2001 between the foreign seller and the appellant. It is revealed from the agreement that the lump sum price of US $ 8,45,000/ - was fixed. It is submitted that the earlier buyer have cancelled the MoA and thereafter survey was conducted and on the basis of the survey report dtd 15.5.2001 the transaction value was ascertained. There is no dispute that the declared value is genuine transaction value and therefore the value on the basis of earlier MoA cannot be sustained. He particularly submits the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaudhary Ship Breakers v/s. CC Ahmedabad : 2010 259 ELT 161 (SC) on the identical situation held that price actually paid or payable acceptable as transaction value. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jai Jagdish Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CC., Jamnagar -2004 177 ELT 928 (Tri. Del.) held that value mentioned in the addendum of MoA cannot be rejected.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.