COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM Vs. RAMANLAL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Original No. 65/2001 dated 7 -3 -2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam. The Revenue is aggrieved with the Commissioners order accepting the transaction value of the imported vessel as declared in the Bill of Entry. The importer had purchased the vessel in a tender for an amount of Rs. 1.03 crores. On a detailed consideration, the Commissioner has held that it is a correct value paid by the importer and has accepted the same. Hence he dropped the proceedings. The Revenue has contended that the assessee has paid Rs. 50,00,000/ - to the owner of the ship in terms of the agreement as out of Court settlement and that amount should have been added in the assessable value. The learned DR argued on this point and submitted that the Revenue has proceeded against the importer in terms of the investigation conducted and recovery of incriminating documents including M.O.A. dated 20 -3 -2000 which showed that the importer had paid Rs. 50.50 lakhs to the owner of the ship as out of Court settlement and this amount should be added in the assessable value, None appeared on behalf of the Respondents despite notice issued.

(2.) WE have gone through the impugned order. The Commissioner has examined the issue and passed the order on this point also holding that this amount was to be paid towards various dues to be payable for various other parties and purposes. After detailed examination he has found that the amount of Rs. 50.50 lakhs paid was towards business expenditure and cannot be considered as value of the ship purchased through tender by the importer. Hence he has not found any nexus between this amount and sale price. The Commissioner after following several judgments has held that this amount cannot be added in the assessable value. We are of the agreement with the detailed findings given by the Commissioner in the light of several judgments and Valuation Rules that this amount cannot be treated as part of the assessable value. Thus the order passed by the Commissioner is upheld. Hence this appeal is dismissed.