2015 (9) TMI 1019

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wner of the vessel and therefore, there was nothing wrong on the part of the appellant to declare that price in the Bill of Entry. We, thus, are of the opinion that the duty should have been assessed on the basis of value declared by the appellant and the assessment made on 18.03.2002 by the assessing officer did not call for any interference. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Civil Appeal No. 3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the said vessel for the purposes of breaking the same. Few days thereafter, another MoA dated 30.08.2000 was signed which was, in fact, an amendment to the first MoA. By this amendment, the price which was reflected in the earlier MoA was marginally reduced. The ship arrived and thereafter, Bill of Entry was filed by the appellant on 01.09.2000 disclosing the price which was agreed to be paid by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... first MoA dated 23.08.2000 was amended by MoA dated 30.08.2000, we find that the price was genuinely revised and a lesser price was agreed to be received by the owner of the vessel and therefore, there was nothing wrong on the part of the appellant to declare that price in the Bill of Entry. We, thus, are of the opinion that the duty should have been assessed on the basis of value declared by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X