TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or not, find that the LDT is not a relevant factor for arriving at the assessable value of the goods especially in respect of the vessel imported in the year 2003 when the tariff was changed and the duty was required to be paid only on the basis of assessable value - Hence, the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed. - C/401/2005, C/124 & 130/2006 - A/1178-1182/2010-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 4-8-2010 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri P.M. Dave, Advocate and P.P. Jadeja, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Rajendra Nagar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellants imported a vessel MV Sagar Prabhat on 12-5-2003 for breaking purpose. The bill of ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uying, it. It must be noted here that the appellant has not seriously disputed the genuineness of the Operation Manual of the LDT of 7996 MT mentioned in it. It appears that no fresh survey was carried out when the vessel arrived at Alang for breaking. The reported dated 12-5-2003 prepared by Admiralty Marine Services only refers to the draft survey carried out in the past (on 10-3-2003) by yet another surveyor and that too at a different place. Obviously, no Customs officer could be present when this survey was carried out at Visakhapatanam. It is for these reasons that the survey report dated 10-3-2003 is unacceptable. But the fact remains that no draught survey was carried out on importation of the vessel at Alang. The report dated 12-5- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 to conclude that the price of the said dead vessel/drill ship is proportionate to the LDT of the said ship. (iii) Prior to 2003-03, in terms of Chapter Note - 2 of Chapter 89, the highest recorded LDT was to be taken for the purpose of assessment. The said Chapter 2 was subsequently deleted and as such, to arrive at the assessable value of the ship on the basis of LDT was unjustified. (iv) Section 14 of the Customs Act provided for assessment of duty value of the imported goods as transaction value. The appellant satisfy all the ingredient of the Section 14(i) and in terms of Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Eicher Tractors - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) there was no justification to reject the transaction value. (v) Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son Pvt. Limited regarding LDT and also shows removed/missing items/ parts in respect of drill ship Sagar Prabhat . However, it will be highly unfair and improper or, the part of Revenue to contend that such Survey reports by Technically experts and reputed Surveyors are not acceptable merely as they were not carried out in the presence of customs officers, particularly when there is no such mandatory requirement to have such Survey Reports in presence of customs officers. The assessment of duty on taking LDT of ship as 7996 MT when it was built in 1982, is totally contrary to facts and the law applicable in this case, (vi) The agreement dated 30-4-2003 between seller and buyer makes the transaction crystal clear and particularly relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Hon ble Supreme Court. (x) The following documents make it crystal clear that transaction value declared by MOA dt. 30-4-2003 is reliable and acceptable, in absence of any other contrary evidence produced by the Revenue. (a) Survey report dt. 10-3-2003 by M/s. Metcalf Hodgkinson Pvt. Limited at Visakhapatnam showing LDT 5679 MT of ship Sagar Prabhat . (b) Memo of Agreement dated 30-4-2003 between M/s. MJR Steels Pvt. Limited and M/s. JRD Industries in respect of the drill ship Sagar Prabhat (c) High Sea Sale agreement dated 30-4-2003. (d) Survey reports dt 12-5-2003 by M/s. Admirality Marine Services, regarding LDT and showing removed/missing items/parts in respect of the drill ship Sagar Prabhat (e) The 3 Bill of Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted or the same is required to enhanced based upon the LDT of the ship. Apart from the fact that Commissioner (Appeals) has adopted the LDT from the original date of manufacture of the ship, we are of the view that any reference to LDT in the present case is irrelevant. Admittedly, the value of the ship between seller and buyer, has not been arrived at on the basis of LDT. It is a lump-sum quantum required to be paid by the buyer to the seller for the ship in question and the price not based on per unit of LDT, in which case, LDT would be given importance. Apart from the dispute on LDT, there is no other evidence on record to show any extra payment to the seller or flow back of money. The payments have been made by cheque through lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
