CROWN STEEL COMPANY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appeared for the appellants. Heard the learned SDR and also perused record.

(2.) THERE are a few issues involved in this appeal. The first issue is about the valuation of the vessel.

(3.) A vessel was purchased by the appellant on the strength of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated 22 -6 -01 on an as is where is basis for total price of US $ 1,584,488. However, the appellants claimed that price was subsequently reduced to US $ 500,456 as there was misdescription in respect of insulation material. As per MOA, the said material was that of fibre glass but it was claimed that it actually consisted of glass wool and other materials. The claim of the appellant for lower value has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that addendum dated 19 -7 -01 is not accordance with MOA dated 22 -6 -01 and that the appellant had failed to provide any reason for the reduction of price from the original invoice price. In similar situation in the case of C.C., Jamnagar v. Shree Ram Steel and Rolling Industries - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 80 (Tri.) and in the case of C.C., Jamnagar v. Chaudhry Industries - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 95 (Tri.), it has been held that the valuation has to be as per the price indicated in the first MOA and therefore, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in law.