TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") is directed against order dated 2nd February 2005, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant herein has been dismissed, confirming the levy of additional customs duty by virtue of the final assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Customs), Bhavnagar on 28th August 2000. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, material for the adjudication of the present appeal, may be stated as follows: M/S Chaudhary Ship Breakers, the appellant before us, imported an old vessel for demolition purpose under Memorandum of Agreement (for short "MOA") dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h negotiations took place between the seller and the appellant, which resulted in a fresh agreement in the form of an addendum dated 8th December 1997 to the original MOA. In the said addendum, the price of the vessel was reduced to US $ 929388.60. The addendum mentioned that the price reduction was due to the "double skin." The bill of entry was filed on 19th December 1997 at the reduced price of the vessel. 7. A provisional assessment was made at the reduced price mentioned in the addendum, and differential duty of Rs. 6,76,415/- was sought to be levied. The final assessment order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Bhavnagar on 28th August 2000, at the original transaction value of the vessel at US $ 992887.20. &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in the case of Atam Manohar (supra), on which reliance was placed by the appellant, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding thus: "In the present case there is no provision in the Memorandum of agreement for reduction of price on any account. We find that Tribunal in the case of Guru Ashish Ship Breakers (supra) held that in absence of any provision in the memorandum of agreement regarding variation in price, the reduction in price after import is not sustainable. In the present case as discussed above, the price was revised after import and in the absence of any provisions regarding price variation in the memorandum of agreement, we find no merit in the appeal." 10. Hence, the present civil appeal by the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal primarily on the ground that the addendum was a self-serving document, the Court observed thus: "We may also point out that in this case we are basically concerned with the genuineness of the addendum to the MoA dated 13th April, 1999. If one looks at the said addendum, we find that the date on which the said addendum stood executed is not given. Further, when did the addendum stand incorporated in the MoA. We do not find the date on which the clause stood inserted in the MoA. Further, the said addendum does not give any reason for reduction in the price from US $ 9,70,960.23 to US $ 8,70,960.23. Further, the most clinching factor to be seen is that the said adden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmined under sub-section (1) of the said Section. The value, as per Section 14(1), as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 10th October 2007, shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation - in the course of international trade. The word "ordinarily" is clarified in the Section itself, which describes an "ordinary" sale as one "where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale...". According to Section 14(1A) price of imported goods is to be determined in accordance with the Rules framed in this behalf. Under Rule 3(i) of the 1988 Rules, the valu....