2022 (8) TMI 336 - AT - Customs

Valuation of Vessel - Whether the transaction value of the vessel is to be priced mentioned in the original MOA or the reduced price indicated in the addendum? - HELD THAT - In light of the statutory provisions the factum of actual payment of the price in terms of the addendum cannot be ignored while determining the value of the vessel under Section 14 of the Act. In such a situation the genuineness and the necessity of reduction in the price are required to be scrutinised very carefully. In the present matter it is noticed that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order only by relying the finding of lower adjudicating authority - In the instant case the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the genuineness of the addendum and has proceeded to reject the appeal of the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) did examine the cogency of the reasons for price reduction. The Commissioner (Appeals) needs to examine the matter afresh - the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration particularly in relation to the genuineness of the addendum entered into between the appellant and the supplier - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Determination of transaction value of a vessel under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of reduced price indicated in the addendum versus the original price mentioned in the MOA.
3. Examination of genuineness of the addendum and necessity of price reduction.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved a dispute regarding the transaction value of a vessel under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the purchase of a vessel, and subsequent amendments were made to the purchase price through addendums. The issue revolved around whether the original price mentioned in the MOA or the reduced price indicated in the addendum should be considered as the transaction value of the vessel.

2. The appellant argued that the reduced price agreed upon in the addendum should be considered the transaction value since it was mutually agreed upon before the vessel's delivery. The appellant contended that the original price mentioned in the MOA was substituted by the reduced price before the delivery, and only the reduced price was paid by the appellant. The appellant emphasized the necessity of considering the actual payment made in determining the value of the vessel.

3. On the other hand, the revenue authority supported the findings of the lower adjudicating authority, citing previous decisions to validate their stance. The revenue authority emphasized the importance of examining the genuineness of the addendum and the reasons behind the price reduction. The Tribunal acknowledged the need to scrutinize the genuineness and necessity of the price reduction while determining the transaction value of the vessel.

4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not adequately examined the genuineness of the addendum and the reasons for the price reduction. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examining the genuineness of the addendum entered into between the appellant and the supplier, keeping all issues open for reevaluation.

5. In the final judgment pronounced on 05.08.2022, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals), directing a fresh examination of the matter, particularly focusing on the genuineness of the addendum and the necessity of the price reduction. The decision highlighted the significance of considering actual payment and scrutinizing the reasons behind any price adjustments in determining the transaction value of the vessel under the Customs Act, 1962.

← Previous Next →