Appeal allowed for vessel valuation based on revised MOA reflecting actual LDT versus originally declared tonnage

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal and set aside the duty demand regarding valuation of an imported vessel. The appellant had declared price based on original MOA with LDT of 10,386 MT, but actual LDT was found to be 10,200 MT at import, creating a shortfall of 186 MT. A revised MOA was executed reflecting the reduced price based on actual LDT. The tribunal found no merit in rejecting the revised valuation when the original declared LDT differed from actual LDT, following precedent in Chaudhary Ship Breakers case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Rejection of declared assessable value for import of ship based on discrepancy in LDT.

Summary:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of the declared assessable value for the import of a ship due to a discrepancy in the Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) as per the original Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and the actual LDT found during inspection. The appellant, a ship breaker, had initially entered into an MOA with the cash seller for the purchase of a ship with declared LDT of 10,386 MT, but upon inspection, the actual LDT was found to be 10,200 MT. Subsequently, revised MOAs were executed to reflect the correct LDT and price. The appellant filed the bill of entry based on the revised value, but a show cause notice was issued proposing a higher assessment without considering the LDT variance. The Tribunal considered legal precedents, including the case of Chaudhary Ship Breakers, and Hussain Sheth Ispat, where it was established that the transaction value based on the revised MOA should be accepted for customs duty payment under Section 14 of the Customs Act if the goods differ from the original agreement. The Tribunal found that the revised price based on the corrected LDT should be considered for duty assessment, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the demand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the revised MOA value should be accepted when the actual LDT differed from the originally declared LDT, in line with legal precedents and statutory provisions. The impugned order rejecting the revised MOA value was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---