Full Judgment
The M.O.A. entered into with the seller is dt. 26-01-2001. The price indicated is US$ 7,24,675/-. The vessel arrived at Alang anchorage on 02-02-2001 and entry inwards granted on 05-02-2001. An addendum dt.08-02-2001 to the M.O.A. was signed by the respondent and the seller of the ship indicating that the L.D.T. of the vessel under question should be read as 4181.30 metric tonnes instead of 4208 metric tonnes indicated in the original M.O.A. Accordingly the price of the vessel was brought down to US$ 6,88,309/-. The bill of entry was assessed finally by the deputy commissioner taking the reduced price into consideration. The Revenue appealed against this order. The commissioner (Appeals) Upheld the order of the deputy commissioner.
2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the commissioner. The grounds are that the price is altered after the Vessel has already entered India. Any altreration in the price after the date of importation and entry inwards is granted is not permissible. The Revenue relied on the tribunals order No. C-II-1997-WZV-2003 dt.
27-07-2003 in the case of commissioner of customs, v. Guru Aashih Ship Breakers. The Revenue also relied on the decision of the tribunal in the case of Commissioner of customs, Ahmedabad v. Saibaba Ship Breaking Corporation wherein it was held that the relevant date for determining value of goods for the purpose of customs duty is the date of importation. The Revenue therefore contends that the commissioner appeal erred and confirming the order of the deputy commissioner.
3. Heard the ld. D.R. and perused the record. None appeared for the respondents.
4. We observe that the Revenue has made out a prima facie case in their favour. It appears that the price of the vessel was sought to be altered after it was imported. We therefore stay the operation of the order of commissioner appeals during the pendancy of the appeal.